Greta Christina has been writing professionally since 1989, on topics including atheism, sexuality and sex-positivity, LGBT issues, politics, culture, and whatever crosses her mind. She is author of
The Way of the Heathen: Practicing Atheism in Everyday Life, of
Comforting Thoughts About Death That Have Nothing to Do with God, of
Coming Out Atheist: How to Do It, How to Help Each Other, and Why, of
Why Are You Atheists So Angry? 99 Things That Piss Off the Godless, and of
Bending: Dirty Kinky Stories About Pain, Power, Religion, Unicorns, & More, and is editor of
Paying For It: A Guide by Sex Workers for Their Clients. She has been a public speaker for many years, and many of her talks can be seen on YouTube. Her writing has appeared in multiple magazines and newspapers, including Ms., Penthouse, Chicago Sun-Times, On Our Backs, and Skeptical Inquirer, and numerous anthologies, including
Everything You Know About God Is Wrong and three volumes of
Best American Erotica. (Any views she expresses in this blog are solely hers, and do not necessarily represent this organizations.) She lives in San Francisco with her wife, Ingrid. You can email her at gretachristina (at) gmail (dot) com, or follow her on
Facebook.
No, but it does call for publicly posting an IP address and any other identifying information.
Sad that their are so many like this. Th ego is fragile in some people that any thing that disturbs their world makes them irrational. Personally, I thought it was an as usual excellent article highlighting some of the darker corners of our world. Keep it up!
I’m embarrassed to be a man when I see bullshit like that.
I am not embarrassed, but angry.
I’m a man. I am 59 years old, married and raised three daughters. While I was raised by my dad to respect women, he never taught me to beat them, or mistreat them, call them names or tell them to shut up. There were girls in my neighborhood (Gulf Coast Texas) that’d beat your butt silly if you tried anything funny like that, too.
I taught my daughters to stand up for themselves and my wife also taught them to kick butt whenever needed, simply by standing up as an example.
People who act like that are worse then animals. They are subhuman and should be treated that way.
Yeah, post IP addresses, names and whatever identifying information you can to shame them into finally complying with community standards, by treating there so shabbily, they forfeit any right to anonymity.
Yes, but…
[runs away]
So, let’s do something about it. What information do we have about these broken chimps? Let’s start a list of these horrible people.
I like the way they do moderation over at DailyKos. It’s a community-based thing. Anyone who would dare to write such an ugly statement would be hide-rated by readers immediately, his post would be irrelevant and take out of the conversation, and an administrator would certainly ban his IP address or user name. Also a threat like that would be archived (as is the case here) and information retained for law enforcement purposes should some real world threat or action materialize.
I’m only passingly familiar with the whole Reditt thing that set this off, but the reddit controversy that sparked this seems to me indicative of a failure of community moderation. If Reddit readers collectively have the ability to ban really offensive comments, then the tone probably would improve. Every site has its own culture. I may be overestimating people, but one would like to think that community moderation at a site like Reddit could be as effective as it is at a site like DailyKos. BS like this post would be gone tout de suite.
@VeritasKnight
Yep, that’s pretty much my reaction.
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. I simply cannot comprehend the mindset that would create sentences this vile.
@RW Ahrens
Yes, I get very angry too. But I go from being furious at these assholes, and being embarrassed that I end up in the same generic slot as them. I don’t really know what more to do, other than to call it out when I see it (and I haven’t seen it often, choosing to surround my virtual space with people who are on the right side of things), and support those who get shit when they call it out.
“We will continue to act as we please”
That’s why they need a “men’s rights” movement, right? Sigh.
I agree that assholes need to lose their anonymity, it’s just that if that particular asshole has any brains at all (yes, that’s arguable) he’s behind a Tor exit point and using someone else’s (at best) or an invalid (otherwise) email address. Falsely accusing someone else does not help anyone.
We will continue to act as we please and you can continue to bitch and moan, but it’s just going to antagonize us.
This is really a declaration of war against all females, that is not only women, but children too. After all,the girl in the picture is just 15, so the question is raised “is there any practical distinction between misogyny and paedophilia?” Consider that the poster is declaring his self-assumed right to abuse any female, even when the female in this case is a child. There is no care here for a child, no concern to nourish and encourage, only the perception of another object of lust, something that can be raped. And indeed it is hard to imagine that anyone who cares for a child could regard that child as mere potential for the satisfaction of personal lust. So it comes down to this: is misogyny to be distinguished from paedophilia? Perhaps for legal purposes one has to make some sort of distinction (after all, male children can be the victims of paedopiliacs), but in the day-to-day world it is clear that misogynists are unavoidably paedophiliacs. The emphasis that has been placed here on misogyny indicates that the connection between misogyny and paedophilia has not been grasped.
The guy is a bully, deprecating Greta for calling out bullies on their bullying.
I take exception to the “#mencallmethings” hashtag. While these cretins may indeed be male, they are not men.
Gordon, “pedophilia” refers to sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Rape threats have nothing to do with sexual attraction (rape is about power; sex is merely a means) and fifteen is not prepubescent. Sacrificing even the barest semblance of accuracy just to bring a term’s emotional impact to bear is indefensible when the MAFIAA and the Republicans do it, and it’s not a habit we should adopt.
Yep. His only argument is “shut up”. Not even a “but…”. It’s just straight up, “shut up, and here’s a threat of violence too”. It offends…every sensibility I have on the issue.
And do you know what else upsets me about it?
It’s explained nicely, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained sarcastically, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained crudely, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained savagely, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained logically, why this attitude is wrong.
And each of these explanations just gets that same sort of response. What do you need to do to get through people’s fucking thick skulls?
(It’s even worse; I believe it technically refers to exclusive or primary attraction to children, whereas the misogynes are pretty much equal-opportunity agewise. “Hatred of females” is an accurate description of their mindset).
While I understand not wanting to be even indirectly associated with sniveling cowardly bigots like these, othering them is doesn’t help. They are men, they are acting as patriarchy trains them to act, and that needs to be dealt with.
it’s similar to calling murderers, etc. “monsters”. no, they’re not. They’re horrible human beings and as long as we other them, we give space to people to continue to ignore problems by dismissing them as aberrations.
These are men, if incredibly ignorant, immature men. They are us. We need to face that shit if we ever have a hope of conquering it.
This creature is a foul misogynist cretin whose fear of, and hatred for, women drips from every syllable of his (and it is almost certainly a cis-sexual man who posted this, a fact that I, as a cis-sexual man, find breeds depression and anger in me in equal measure) post. What an inadequate excuse for a human being he is.
How DARE you blog while female!
Veritas@16:
I know, I know… I’ve tried the same thing on my cat:
It’s explained nicely, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained sarcastically, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained crudely, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained savagely, why this attitude is wrong.
It’s explained logically, why this attitude is wrong.
When someone responds “shut up” and casts vile insults or threats, the proper response is not explanation, but behavior modification. Eliminate the comment, ban the commenter, shut down the conversation. Structure the environment.
Hello Azkyroth. Nice to talk to you again. You are right to insist on a strict definition of paedophilia, although here in Britain it’s a bit different, as it protects all girls below the legal age of consent (16), so it’s not strictly linked to pubescence, especially as this varies amongst individuals (as it is not true to say that a 15-year-old is ipso facto sexually mature, nor is pubescence to be equated with maturity; and “pubescence” is, by definition, pre-mature). Rather, it’s more to do with defining an age at which a person can be expected to have an adult understanding of the world. I do not believe that rape-threats have nothing to do with sexual attraction, however, because it seems to me that rape-threats are made in part as a response to sexual reaction. If only power were the issue, there are many ways in which power can be expressed, and are expressed, without resort to sexual attack. So the fact that sexual attack is the method used suggests that a sexual response is involved in the behaviour.
I agree that we should not distort truth merely to claim a victory on false emotive grounds, but in this case I do not think that the objection applies. A fifteen-year-old is not an adult and should be respected as a child, which she is, and the fact that a child can be the victim of such hatred does indeed suggest paedophilia to me. A child can be abused on the basis that she is perceived as a sexual object, and whatever the intention to assert power may be, it cannot be denied that the response is sexual. Furthermore, I think that it is unlikely that male power would have been exerted against an innocent child publicising her beliefs to like-minded people if she had not innocently elicited a sexual response. It is difficult to account for the reaction otherwise. And in turn there must be an association between sexual response and hatred* for the person who excites such a response. So I insist that it is paedophilia, and that misogyny and paedophilia, at least where girls are concerned, cannot in practice be disentangled.
*I think that the hatred comes about because a man who perceives a female (woman or child) as an object of personal desire cannot deal well with the fact that the “object” is an independent person. Either she gratifies his desire, or she must be prevented from realising her personhood. That is why in this case power and sex cannot be separated. I agree that this represents an all-but-unthinkable degree of selfishness, but I think that it is the case, nevertheless.
(It’s even worse; I believe it technically refers to exclusive or primary attraction to children, whereas the misogynes are pretty much equal-opportunity agewise. “Hatred of females” is an accurate description of their mindset).
Except for the first bit, which is a matter of national law, I agree. Hatred of females is what it’s about. Prompted, I would say, by lust, and the desire to conrol objects of lust which have minds of their own — that’s the power bit. And it necessitates paedophilia. Paedophilia is just a part of it, but it’s there.
Ivorybill @16
I absolutely agree that we should moderate and change behaviour. However, on the Internet, this isn’t exactly practical. I’m glad Greta and a host of other bloggers here have a decently strict comments policy. It makes sense. But reddit doesn’t. And a whole host of other sites do not. We can’t influence through our behaviour modification a significant portion of the world around us.
That’s why we need to find other ways.
Err. @21.
The Internet Troll *needs* someone to respond to his (usually male) very fragile ego. The INternet Troll has incredibly low self-esteem. Answering the Internet Troll feeds the Beast inside his head.
I am a mens, and I call you things, too. Like Intelligent, Inspiring, and Kick Ass. Helpful, even. Thanks for sticking around despite the asshats, Greta.
Maybe these guys need psychological help, because that is just sick.
Who cares?
Seriously, who cares?
We don’t need to be concerned with the morons’ psychological state. There’s a broader culture we’re worried about. This shit needs to be exposed and shouted down, both to show people who have the privilege of not seeing it that it is prevalent and a problem, and to provide support and community for those people who are targeted by it.
@ Daniel Fincke- it was a publicly posted comment containing a threat of violence. I’m not entirely sure that I personally would post an IP if I got something like this, but there is no reasonable expectation of privacy here for the commenter. Heck, as long as I have read Pharyngula, P.Z. has had a note stating he would out anyone who even e-mailed him a threat (although I’ve never seen him follow through). Nothing seems, to me, the slightest bit unfair in that.
a man who perceives a female (woman or child) as an object of personal desire cannot deal well with the fact that the “object” is an independent person.
To amplify this a bit, the girl was holding a book, to show that she identified herself with the principles she associated with that book, and in doing so was publicly making a stand on principle, a stand which she believed would be welcomed by people of like mind. So in presenting her face beside a statement of philosophical amd moral principle she was also, implicitly (though I doubt whether this was conscious) making a declaration about herself as a person: as an incipient thinker, as a brand-new upholder of the right of human self-determination. Of course, what she thought she was doing was identifying herself with others of like mind. And we find that a number of men respond sexually to her face, and object to the implicit declaration of independence-of-mind that the image of the book stands for. The mere fact that so many men should be so careless of their plain duty to support the young and encourage the growth of wisdom and knowledge, the fact that they cannot take pleasure in a young person’s joy of discovery, that they should merely respond sexually to a young face and treat the stated aspiration to a newly-awakened independence-of-mind as a personal offence, is an indictment of my sex, and something of which I feel deeply ashamed. But we see it everywhere, in the honour-killings of young women who talk to men, who have phone-numbers on their mobile phones, in stonings of 12-year-old rape-victims, in the cutting-off of fingers of young women who aspire to learning…Women have to be the chattles of these despicable sex-driven men.
How’d you know it was a man?
How’d you know it was a man?
Good question, Jill. So what, in your opinion, would be the implications if El were a woman?
Not being stupid helps a lot
*snicker*
Do women very often descend on threads with psychotic rape ‘jokes’, Jill? Do you?
I’m gonna give the analysis a shot.
1. Wasn’t held enough as a child.
2. Sociopath
3. It was Kasey Kahne
4. All of the above.
;/
Sometimes it is just flat embarassing to be a man. But I guess there has to be someone to dirty the gene pool; hopefully we’ll eventually get it cleaned up.
“Pedophilia” is a clinical term. I suppose the term might have a specific legal definition in Britain; in the relevant jurisdiction, however, the term is one used by psychologists and misused by pop culture and the news, and the crime is “child molestation” and/or “statutory rape.”
Also.
Please tell me you don’t mean this to apply to the general case.
…or, alternatively, that you’re using “object of desire” as a term of art and not equating it with sexual attraction in the general case. That habit still confuses the hell out of me.
How vile. Greta, you keep your head up (as always so amiably you do) and keep marching forward in the quest to end this kind of culture. I admire you for speaking out and conducting yourself so well in the face of this kind of hailstorm.
I’m a female atheist and so far I’ve avoided conventions and conferences because I’m drained by the prospect of dealing with this asshat-ery. College is demanding enough as it is without spending your little free time in unhealthy environments.
I am optimistic we can improve.
Also, the phrase “irrational cunt” is really irritating. Female genitalia, from my understanding, is indeed non-terminating, but I’m not sure you could say it doesn’t repeat. >.>
(Well, maybe in that fuckhead’s experience…)
Damn misogynists should just go MATHturbate and leave decent humans alone. >.>
Also, there’s probably a “ratio of two (w)hole numbers” joke in there somewhere. O.o
[…] know what the Streisand Effect is. Telling ‘The Internet’ to behave is going to have a cause and effect thing. Poor Greta found out the hard way that she has no authority over the Internet. She likewise has no […]
Sorry, Ive got to say it:
Its unfair to blame men, I’ve said some vicious things to women and men alike online. Its never had anything to do with gender and always had a whole lot to do with me being a vicious person…who just so happens to be female.
Yeah. Stop blaming the anti-woman sexism and hatred on men. And the vicious thing said to Greta had nothing to do with her being a woman.
Yes, I’m rolling my eyes as I type this.
Azkyroth,
Shockingly bad taste! But at least you avoided mentioning hair pi.
~~~
“but it’s just going to antagonize us”
And that would be bad because …?
~~~
“What do you need to do to get through people’s fucking thick skulls?”
I’m not sure we can, but we can hope that the next generation is better. We need to do what we can to set decent examples. I think this is a big part of the reason that the slimeballs must be figuratively stomped, even at the risk (and I’m unconvinced there is a risk worthy of consideration) of feeding trolls.
Possible involuntary incarceration and a tight-fitting straight-jacket, OTOH?
Really why do we allow bad cupcakes to do this in our soicety – to say such vile, intimidating things?
Oh yeah, rape culture. Proof right there.
Imagine for a second that that threat was directed at the President or a judge .. Hmm?
@30. BaisBlackfingers : December 30, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Agreed. here it is :
Source : http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/
(Right under the ‘donate’ button on the profile on the right hand sidebar.
I would suggest that Greta Christina and others adopt tehsame polciy. Don’t know whether or not itworks but there may be some deterrent factor and they can always excercise that optionand say the pitiful pestillential fleas who violate it have been warned.
PZ does so follow through on that warning – not often but don’t anybody relax because they’ve not seen it happen.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_cost_of_delusional_derange.php
I can’t even think of a “but”.
Apparently this “reddit” site is one of those places overrun by people who believe it’s somehow “edgy” or “realistic” or “clever” to drag everyone and everything down to their own gutter level. It seems to me that this often results from the fallacy that if nothing is inherently meaningful, it must follow that everything is inherently meaningless. It’s not particularly surprising that some people with the mindset of rebellious teens would be attracted to an atheist forum for acting out their “transgressive” behavior.
Hey! Scroll down a little bit and read this, willya? Then come back and explain why you still prioritize defending the reputation of men over showing that misogyny is just not okay.
I really doubt your level of viciousness is on par with that of the virulent misogynists exemplified by the quote Greta offered here.
I can’t stand people like this.
I can’t stand “logic” like this.
And, oh, the irony of you being the irrational one when they can’t accept criticism and re-education when it is so obviously necessary.
I had read that, hence prefacing everything with an apology.
I’m not condoning it, I’ll readily admit its shitty. I sure as hell am not “defending” it.
I am challenging the idea that its not ok to have a conversation, that we have to accept that its men doing it, and short of stating our disapproval we have to shut up.
Because that is what these posts say.
I like being told to shut up much less than I like being call gender specific names.
With that in mind, when I see #mencallmethings trending on twitter, I cant help but think “what a horrible shame”.
#peoplecallmethings fine whatever, but this IS unfair.
And no I wont let the graphic or shocking nature of the things said to that little girl shock me in to shutting up. Of fucking course it was horrible, but I am not going to accept that pointing the finger at men and screaming “bad” is the only appropriate response.
If that means putting my head on the chopping block and admitting that I as a woman have been vicious and nasty to men and women alike, then fine.
I have offered no defense of the people who said these things, I have only been honest and admitted that I (even in my apparently saintly status as a woman) have said, and will probably continue to say vicious things.
Its unproductive and useless to say we cant offer protest or analysis.
This is why chimpanzees fling poo. Because they cannot articulate a cogent argument.
Yes, let’s never point out that the vast majority of rapes are committed by men, because that would be bigotry and it would make men feel bad (except the rapists, I suppose).
Let’s never point out that sexism is a GENDERED problem for which men are disproportionately responsible. Holding men in general responsible for their actions makes them feel uncomfortable, so let’s not do it.
What could possibly go wrong?
I am not sure if this knee-jerk reaction should be expected, but I will ask that you stop putting words in my mouth.
If that is the conversation you wish to have, I am happy to have it with you, though this doesnt seem the best place to have it.
That being said, all my above statements have addressed is that shutting down conversation is a terrible idea.
Telling people that you are so offended at someone’s words that you can make blanket statements of guilt at half the population, and expect no dispute is wrong.
It also whitewashes over the bounty of female originated viciousness.
If you feel I have made a denial of simple facts such as “men are more likely by far to rape women than women are to rape men” then I am sorry, you have greatly misunderstood me.
That fact however does not warrant the closing down of conversation and the blanketing of guilt on a gender.
Your (or my) disgust with the words of assholes does not warrant the demand of silence, further it doesn’t put a “case closed” stamp on your guilty verdict.
I says again: Its unproductive and useless to say we cant offer protest or analysis.
Hello, Azkyroth.
It may be that I have confused certain issues in my use of the word “paedophilia” in the present context. However, I have been looking at ways in which the word is used and understood and see no reason, at least at the moment, to change my mind on the subject, at least in principle. I accept that I need to work on it. The following seems quite a useful summary: http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/nov2006/pedophile1.html
My expression “object of desire” is not intended as a term of art or any kind of special term: I mean the words literally. Of course, the context makes it clear that I am talking here specifically about sexual desire.
a man who perceives a female (woman or child) as an object of personal desire cannot deal well with the fact that the “object” is an independent person.
I suppose I could have been clearer here, but I’d like to point out in passing that your worry about my applying this to “the general case” — if I understand you correctly — seems unnecessarily suspicious: I think my context is clear enough. I am talking about a contradiction between seeing someone as an object and seeing them as a person. I don’t see how it is possible to do both. I don’t mean to imply that being sexually aroused by another person entails losing sight of their personhood, because everyday experience tells us that that is not so. To be aroused by another person is simply to acknowledge their power to arouse, as a valuable part of their independent personhood. Sexual response in itself entails no compulsion to act, as is daily demonstrated by ordinary people who behave well out of genuine care for others, which makes their sexual orientation irrelevant. If this were not the case, no heterosexual man would ever have behaved well towards a female student or towards a friend’s daughter, and we know that there are plenty of caring men around.
Insofar as we are dealing here with people, and especially men, whose selfishness expresses itself in the emotional abuse of a 15-year-old because she is female and young, then we are engaging with the central contradiction that I have tried to highlight: a man who sees only an object of desire cannot see a person; and such a man has no care for a child as such. (And I’d like to add: A man who resents the power of another to arouse him and be independent of him and his feelings sees not only an object of desire but a threat: the object becomes the blameworthy cause of the arousal. [Religion seems to institutionalise this view]). Conversely, any normal person would be touched; her youthfulness would be recognised as contributory to her actions, and understood as a vulnerability that should be respected and protected. I cannot imagine how a person can be seen in any other way, unless either one is suffering some form of mental distress or one is so imbued with selfishness that one’s world is filled with objects of personal gratification.
El’s comment declares the deliberate intention to behave in a self-serving way in a manner which suggests a relationship between objectification and hatred. This is getting pretty deep now, and I don’t want to hijack the thread. I have been asked by a friend to post on this subject, however, so I’ll try to do that in the next few days. I’ll only say that the “Yes butters” are providing the loopholes in which misogyny can thrive; no one who truly sees the hope and the happiness on that child’s face could tolerate a “yes but” for a single second.
Mallorie, it’s not a matter of blaming men, it’s a matter of learning to understand and accept how things are. We will not be able to move forward unless we do so. In an equal world, women will have as many opportunities as men to do every possible kind of wicked thing that the human mind can devise, and I have encountered people who use this as an argument against full equality; but equality has to come nevertheless, because justice demands it. At the moment it is still men who hold the reins of power, whether in politics, religion, the home or the workplace, and misogyny is a fundamental part of the problem. Saying “women can be bad too” is true, but in the present context it merely derails the discussion.
Good thing that’s not what’s happening.
Nuance, people. Goodness.
Move forward?
In an equal world things like #mencallmethings do not trend on facebook.
Everything else you said I feel lacks credibility, I could offer up my examples of women who “hold the reins of power” and you could retort in kind, I would prefer not to get in to that, it seems a waste of time.
Rather I will offer real equality:
Stop creating gender divides. This isn’t a women’s issue its an assholes + anonymity issue.
That is not a derailment of discussion, the most offensive absurd thing you can do is act like gender matters.
Actually, thats pretty much what “I don’t think this one needs any analysis.” means.
Pointing out sexism is sexist!
Mallorie, it’s unproductive and useless to offer a protest that serves mainly to derail the topic of discussion and bury a very specific problem with very specific gender issues in a non-specific and conveniently unaddressable and species-wide problem like “well, people sometimes treat each other like crap.”
It’s unproductive and useless (and worse) to offer an analysis that deliberately ignores reality to such a degree as to render it meaningless.
The first attempt to pass an equal rights amendment was introduced in the US almost 90 years ago.
The attempt took decades and eventually was all but abandoned almost 40 years ago. Since then not one major political figure has even DARED to bring up the subject.
You will NEVER hear a political candidate call for equal rights for women in this country. You will NEVER hear a talking head on any of the major political discussion shows bring up the subject. Anyone who did would essentially be laughed off into irrelevance.
The idea of treating women equally in the US is literally treated as a JOKE, if not an outrage and an affront to “family values.”
The constitution of the United States, which we treat practically as holy scripture, enshrines sexism as a core value of this country.
This is NOT the result of “sometimes people treat each other like shit, women just as much as men.”
It’s a result of one gender – men, as a group treating another gender, women, as a group – as inferior. Such has been the case throughout all of human history.
That’s a blanket statement and it’s accurate. Yes, a tiny handful (relatively) of men have marched to support equal rights for women, and a larger minority have voiced support but have done nothing of substance… and the majority don’t give a thought to it at all or actively support such discrimination.
Yes, a minority of women have marched against equal rights.
But to claim that sexism, whether it be a 15 year old kid being threatened with anal rape because she dared show her face, is NOT a case of one gender in general treating another like shit is just absurd. 15 year old boys are not typically threatened with rape for showing their faces online by groups of women in a nasty mood.
Sexism has allies of all genders but it essentially is the result one gender treating the other like shit.
Sexism exists because men treat women like shit. Period.
Saying “women can be assholes too, you know…” only serves to change the subject and provide cover and an excuse for the offenders.
Women can be very helpful in combating sexism of course, but sexism is a MALE-GENERATED problem. It is an action of men – the vast majority of men either being directly responsible or giving it a pass, and it cannot be solved until MEN take responsibility for the problem THEY ARE CAUSING, and change their behavior.
I am a man, I know how other men talk, I know that in a group of “liberal” men with no women around sexist attitudes and speech are common, I hear the side of it that women don’t hear, and I cannot be fooled by “well, everyone can be snotty” excuses.
The blanket statement is true. MEN are primarily (almost solely) responsible for sexism against women, men far much less likely to be victims of sexism by women, and only MEN can fully solve this problem, because the problem is their behavior.
Not individual men with bad attitudes – men in general. Men as a gender. ALL MEN. We ALL benefit from privilege, and unless we’re out there actively combating it, and until we succeed, ALL MEN are responsible. (That realization is why many of those men fighting the fight ARE fighting the fight.)
Until men collectively as a gender demand an ERA, demand equal treatment of women, demand that women collectively not be treated like shit, as less than fully human, then men collectively, as a gender, are responsible.
As a man I can handle my share of the blame and my share of the responsibility. Please stop trying to create excuses and diversions to let me off of the hook. I don’t need you to do that, and no other men do either despite how bitterly they complain.
“Stop creating gender divides. This isn’t a women’s issue its an assholes + anonymity issue.”
Do 15 year old boys who post their photo get routinely threatened with anal rape?
Go to Reddit and post this inane drivel, you’ll likely find people there stupid enough to believe this idiotic assertion.
Move forward?
Yes.
In an equal world things like #mencallmethings do not trend on facebook.
I think you mean “in an equal world things like #mencallmethings would not trend on facebook. Your expression suggests that you are equating hope with present reality, or what ought to be with what is.
Everything else you said I feel lacks credibility,
What, everything? Or do you just mean:
I could offer up my examples of women who “hold the reins of power”
Yes. So can I. (Would that be a reply in kind?)
I would prefer not to get in to that, it seems a waste of time.
Then why comment about it? Please, if you care about cruelty to young girls, don’t get lost in personal animosity.
Rather I will offer real equality: Stop creating gender divides.
No. Considering someone’s behaviour is not in itself to create gender-divides. If gender-divide is a fact, we need to look at that. If it isn’t, then we have to account for the problem of misogyny in another way. But if talking about misogyny is what you are objecting to, then I would like to understand why. Is it because you think it doesn’t exist? And if you think it does exist, why should we not talk about it?
This isn’t a women’s issue its an assholes + anonymity issue.
That’s probably a valid way to see it. It’s true as it stands. Unfortunately, it’s insufficient, because, as has been pointed out, a boy doing the same has not been subject to the same abuse. Therefore there is a problem that involves gender.
That is not a derailment of discussion
Yes, it is. You are trying to stop the discussion because you disagree with its premises.
the most offensive absurd thing you can do is act like gender matters.
First, “offensive”. In what way are you offended by the focus on gender? Is it because of a concern for truth and justice, or because of something more personal?
Second “act like”. No, I’m not merely trying to give an impression.
Third “gender matters.” What if it does, Mallorie? It always has done in the past. Whole ways of life are and have been built on it. Perhaps you are trying to say that gender ought not to matter. I agree. But until we reach that happy condition, it matters, and we have to deal with it. That’s what I mean by “move forward”.
GordonWillis, I would love to continue this conversation with you via facebook, I will not be posting here anymore because the reply format sucks and I really do not like having words put in my mouth.
Anyone else you’re welcome to join in.
Or you can continue to act like this single egregious instance warrants your predetermined guilty verdict on the male gender. Dont worry, I’m sure the demand for no analysis will go unchallenged from here.
“act like this single egregious instance warrants your predetermined guilty verdict on the male gender.”
Yeah, that’s what we’re doing. Everything was all hunky-dory in the world and sexism didn’t exist until this single instance.
The only lack of analysis is your own. Your conclusions seem to come from having lived on some other planet.
Actually, after digging a little deeper I thought I would show you all just one of the comments that our lovely feminists chose to leave out:
http://i44.tinypic.com/23mn3x1.png
I point you to Rebecca’s post on this subject where she posted a partial screencap, one that deliberately excludes this post by the OP…
Boy, you guys got caught out, especially Watson who had to deliberately cut that out of her screencap to make her point.
Oh but i know, she’s been ‘conditioned’ by so many years of male misogyny that she no longer knows better. She felt like she had to ask for it to fit in, it is still the men’s fault.
GordonWillis, I would love to continue this conversation with you via facebook, I will not be posting here anymore because the reply format sucks
This is my preferred format. I am suspicious of facebook and avoid it. Or if you want to retire from the lists and regroup, then there is no shame in that.
and I really do not like having words put in my mouth.
Please, if you think anyone is doing that, just say so! Do you mean that I don’t understand what you are saying? It isn’t fair to say that people are putting words into your mouth, just because they aren’t getting what you mean. I can only reply on the basis of my understanding of what you are saying. Why should you suppose anyone is deliberately trying to credit you with false sentiments?
…
Or you can continue to act like this single egregious instance warrants your predetermined guilty verdict on the male gender.
Oh, come on. How many egregious instances do you need? Recently I read about a grown man spitting on a 7-year-old girl because she was walking in the streets and had the effrontery to look like a girl. You see, only men should be allowed to walk the main streets and assemble in front of the synagogue. Women have to cover up and keep to the back streets, if they can be permitted to leave the house at all. How many girls have to be stamped to death or buried alive by their fathers and brothers before you will accept that we have a problem? We have to understand our nature. We know that we can do better, but we have work to do first.
Nice one GordonWillis, a group of fanatical religious nuts is an accurate representation of the general attitudes of men.
Its not because they follow a horrible reactionary bronze age religion that they have those abhorrent attitudes, its because they are men.
The women in africa that cut off the clitoris and labia minoris of their daughters, that is not because they have horrible backwards cultural traditions. Its because #womendobadthings.
No analysis required.
Gordon, I was enjoying talking with you and felt you made points I would like to address, by all means post on my FB wall for the world to see if that would make you more comfortable.
The remainder of my comment was not addressed to you, but rather to Murmur Muris who seems to think inane condescension is a suitable response to my argument, and Jafafa who seems to want to accuse me of changing the subject all the while going off on an absurd rant about the history of sexism. Sorry Jafafa, not only do you not have a point because its not 1900 anymore, but additional because you are just wrong, “women’s issues” are discussed publicly to an annoying degree, take a look at Hillary Clinton’s interviews about “the glass ceiling” for reference, there are plenty more but this is the tit for tat format I was hoping to avoid.
Before I go, I must insist everyone see all the “anus” based comments might have been unwarranted but did not come out of the blue they were in response to the young woman saying this:
http://i44.tinypic.com/23mn3x1.png
Given the context, they make a whole lot more sense, which I must assume is why the Rebecca and her ilk opted to leave it out.
Yeah, keep trying Skep-Prick and Mallorie, you almost have me convinced that everything I’ve seen in my 46s years of life, every study I’ve read, every instance I’ve personally seen, every experience women I know have related to me, every sexist law I’ve seen, every group of angry men I’ve seen trying to defeat the righting of sexist laws, every beer commercial I’ve seen, every comment about women I’ve personally heard, every instance of sexual abuse of female friends and relatives I know have were completely imaginary.
Enough. Enough bullshit.
You’ve been treated more politely than you fucking deserve.
Just how fucking stupid do you think we are?
Seriously?
Skep-Prick, I take offense when someone treats me like I’m a fucking idiot. When you come around with the ridiculous denial of sexism in our culture and offer not one fucking SHRED of evidence for your position – when you deny given evidence of sexism without any substance for your denials, when you deny the pervasive presence of sexism in our culture without giving the SLIGHTEST argument to support your ridiculous claim, you display such contempt for those you speak to that you expect them to accept your evidence-less claims against their own experience, you insult their intelligence.
You greatly underestimate our intelligence.
You greatly overestimate yours.
You make what is a virtually substanceless argument and greatly overestimate the credence it deserves.
You act not only as an apologist for sexism but to deny its very existence. You deny the experiences of women without evidence but merely because you, Skep-Dick, say so and we must accept that. You know what a person is who denies the reality of the sexism that BILLIONS of people live under with your own baseless assertion being the only evidence for that very baseless assertion? That person is sexist, that’s what.
Women’s experience don’t matter. MEN’S experiences don’t matter, all that matters is what you say.
I can’t speak for others, but you know how I react when a sexist idiot comes along and essentially asserts without any basis that I’m, so fucking stupid as to have spent my life in a coma?
What I do is I tell that sexist ass who is treating me like an idiot to go fuck themselves. That may be the ever-present “human tendency towards nastiness” coming out in me. Or it might just be my low tolerance for dishonest shitheads.
Go fuck yourself, Skep-Prick.
Nice one GordonWillis, a group of fanatical religious nuts is an accurate representation of the general attitudes of men. Its not because they follow a horrible reactionary bronze age religion that they have those abhorrent attitudes, its because they are men.
Well, as I said somewhere above, religion seems to institutionalise this attitude. I can see why you are concerned to separate religious observance from male attitudes, because from an abstract point-of-view religion is just religion and that’s just culture. Of course, no one is responsible for culture, are they? My own view is that religion is the way it is because it is determined almost entirely by men (and that fact is undeniable) and the misogyny derives from primitive male attitudes to women, which can easily be ascertained from an examination of their scriptures. So yes, you can say that their attitudes come from a bronze-age religion, but I think that the attitudes promoted by religion come first from primitive men. These religious attitudes chime so well with the enhancement of male power over women that I have trouble seeing them any other way. Another way to look at it is, that religion demands male hegemony. So whatever the original cause, Mallorie’s “gender-divide” is still an issue.
The women in africa that cut off the clitoris and labia minoris of their daughters, that is not because they have horrible backwards cultural traditions. Its because #womendobadthings.
Well, so they do. In any particular case, such as this one, it seems reasonable to ask why they do, just as we are examining here why men do what they do. Horrible backwards cultural traditions have explanations. Consider what men gain by the practice of FGM: the goods can be guaranteed pristine and unsoiled, and crippled in the ability to enjoy sexual intercourse; the insistence on dry sex further reinforces the prohibition against a woman enjoying sex, and the suspicion that a women does enjoy sex invokes a defensive reaction to preserve honour. The point being that a male learns to feel threatened by independence of mind and feeling in a sexual object. Naturally, women can be expected to carry on the good old tradition, because it’s all they know, and there are so many penalties for non-compliance.
This just came through.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2011/12/sakineh-is-not-safe/
If you haven’t already done so, please add your voices.
Jafafa Hots well done there. Unable to address what I have said you have created a caricature of me, complete with unsaid views and attitudes. I’ve looked over my posts just to make sure. and absolutely nothing you say addresses or even references anything i have said. If i didn’t know better i’d say you were a ‘misogynist troll’ pretending to be an angry feminist. Your post is nothing short of a hilarious caricature of what i would have expected posting an opposing view here.
Extreme apparent anger, insults, accusation based on little evidence, amazing that you feel so amazingly insulted by things i have said to you, ignoring the fact i have not addressed you or anything you have at all in this section or anywhere on the internet. My posts have been short direct responses based on what has been said in the post above mine. It is however convenient that you do not bring up specifically anything i have said, lest that interfere with the stream of unfounded insults you throw my way.
Well done, your post is the very definition of irrational. Though I am far above the level of calling anyone a cunt or asking them to harm themselves, no doubt other people who are force interact with you, and attempt to respond to such vitriol will probably end up doing that for me.
Though I am far above the level of calling anyone a cunt or asking them to harm themselves, no doubt other people who are force interact with you, and attempt to respond to such vitriol will probably end up doing that for me.
If that’s what you want, do it yourself. You’re obviously not so far above that level as to not desire it. Wouldn’t you call this hypocrisy, if anyone else had said it?
GordonWillis, thank you for your well reasoned response.
There is honestly little i can disagree with in this post, i would certainly agree that the anti-female attitudes expressed in most religions do come from the fact those laws were written by men, men in positions of power over women and wishing to exert and cement that power through the invoking of a higher power.
However the israel example is not a good one becuase that is a small minority of israeli men, and it has sparked widespread protests across israel from men and women who oppose it.
The african example is one of women simply following an ancient cultural tradition. A horrible one that needs to be gotten rid of, instead of protesting the mutilation of their daughters and themselves, these women not only go along with it, they are the ones who undertake it. In light of this they are just as guilty, unless you want to invoke the Nuremberg defence, “just following orders”. However, i would not say that all women are bad because those minory practicing this do nothing to oppose or stop it.
The african example is one of women simply following an ancient cultural tradition. …these women not only go along with it, they are the ones who undertake it. In light of this they are just as guilty…
If I may take this last bit first. First I need to repeat that these women know little else apart from what they have been taught. If they were permitted education, they may well think differently, or at least be in a position to examine their culturally determined behaviour. And if having been educated, they continue to practise this barbarism, one has to question whether reasoning is involved or a rationalisation of learnt precepts. [To do this, we need to listen to what they say. So far, I have not been convinced by the intellectual arguments in favour of FGM that I have heard (sexual purity, women as bearing the burden of the defence against promiscuity, female cultural identity — it’s a girl thing!!!) and see no reason to drop my suspicion that these arguments are rationalisations that act to protect male hegemony]. The shadow of culture and religion is so very long and dark that it is difficult for anyone to escape it entirely. You can only call them guilty if they have full understanding of the effect of their actions and why that effect is widely considered cruel, and have the emotional strength to escape from the fear engendered by the abandonment of all the precepts they have learnt; but — if Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s testimony can be introduced here — they have odd beliefs, such as that the clitoris will grow and grow till it dangles between the knees if it isn’t cut off. It seems to me that such a belief cannot have originated from general experience in the first place, so it’s probably a later rationalisation; but how can any of these women know this? In the same way, men are also products of their culture, the problem being here that the culture tends to work in their favour, at least on an emotional level, so it is much harder for the men to accept that their position is one of oppression. And this is where the problem of selfishness begins to be relevant. And on top of that it is hard for anyone to accept that they are actually oppressed by prevailing assumptions which they share. We see things just so, and that’s how they are. Mindset is extremely hard to change.
However the israel example is not a good one becuase that is a small minority of israeli men, and it has sparked widespread protests across israel from men and women who oppose it.
In the Israeli case, I think that the fact that we are dealing with a minority is not so important in itself. Israel is a democracy, was established as such, and the old democratic ideals have not yet been swept away by determined religious attack. So to that extent it’s a more enlightened society, more like our own (Europe, USA) in which it is possible to question issues such as misogyny quite openly. The minority that is threatening it can be compared with the so-called Male Rights Activists we are now hearing from so much, or the Islamists who are busily taking over some of the streets of London. A minority, but expressive of a primitive male desire for power, which entails power over women. Consider this minority in the light of the political structures of many other countries (including Britain and the USA, but obviously the Middle East generally and Pakistan, to say nothing of dysfunctional states like Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo), the many demands of fundamentalists everywhere, secular MRAs, and men like El who seem to think that their desires trump all other considerations. It’s not so small, and the behaviour is scarcely any different, at least in principle. If only it were just a matter of idiot fundamentalist minorities! But my main point is: here is a man who spits on a little girl, because she is a girl, because she is in the street, because she is going to school, because she does not obey the rules that the man requires her to obey as being female and therefore a distraction to the godly (male). Of course, it’s just another example of how religion poisons everything, but what is going through the mind of this man that he should drink that poison? It is simply too convenient that his religious beliefs should grant him authority over certain others who just happen to be at least incipiently desirable objects. Those beliefs may involve precepts which restrict the expression of his desire in all sorts of ways, ways which support the primitive politics of tribalism, but at the same time they declare the absolute nature of the authority of his desires.
However, i would not say that all women are bad because those minory practicing this do nothing to oppose or stop it.
I don’t understand why you say this: that you “would not say that all women are bad because…”?? Surely by the same token you wouldn’t say that all men are bad because hundreds of SS soldiers put Jews in gas chambers? If we want to move forward, we have to start by seeing as clearly as we can where we are now. We are just human, and we are all we have to help each other. We do this and that, but slowly we are learning to look at what we do, dimly we perceive that things could be better.
…so?
…so?
So… while she has been painted as some poor victim by the misandrists here, she was in fact, not only a willing participant in the far flung sexual innuendo but the original instigator. Her post was the first post to make any sexual reference. The very first post above hers was simple “brace yourself, the compliments are coming” a completely innocuous, non-sexual statement. The very first statement with any sexual reference was not from a male, but from the OP herself
If your answer is still “…so?” then it appears no amount of reasoning will get us anywhere.
Oh, a 15-year-old girl posted a juvenile joke about her butt! That means the flood of misogynistic remarks she received is totally okay, guys. She was, after all, asking for it. It’s not like that happens to women who post on the internet and DON’T make juvenile remarks about their butts.
Do you think, had a 15 year old male, in response to her posting the picture, remarked “prepare your anus” to her, it would be considered by you: A) a juvenile joke about her butt. or B)A horrible Mysoginistic remark from a male.
It’s clear from your attempt to whitewash the remark and remove the clear sexual innuendo from it ‘she was just joking about her butt…’ No, she was making a clear reference to anal sex, but extra points for being intellectually dishonest.
Even granting that she was, in fact, making a facetious comparison between the reception she expected and anal sex and/or rape, why do you imagine that justifies the flood of jokes about raping her that followed?
Also, couldn’t she just as easily been joking about bracing for an ass-kicking? Or does her inferred possession of a vagina mean that anything she says that could possibly be sexual is necessarily sexual?
I mean, this is bordering on “well, did you see the skirt she was wearing?”, for fuck’s sake.
A disgusting rape joke. Because it was imposed on her by someone else, stupid.
No, but boy do you guys love Straw-man fallacies.
First of all this has been presented to us by our “skeptical” feminists as a series of rape threats, caused only by her gender.
With the introduction of her description of her ass preparation we learn that not only were they not rape threats but a reply to the condition of a “braced” anus. This correct context explains why all the replies were phrased in the terms of a clenched asshole.
NOT because they are rape based but because she described herself as “bracing” her anus in preparation for their coming posts.
It is hardly any wonder then that they replied in kind.
We were (deliberately?) mislead, then told not to analyze or discuss.
The situation described to us was one of a young woman innocently posting nothing but an image, and being welcomed with random vicious threats of violence.
In reality we have a young woman posting a picture to of herself, accepting flirtation, and introducing a sexual description of her anus, and people responding.
Further she seems to have taken it all in stride and continued to open the door for sexual remarks, I took the liberty of screen capping her adult and honestly appropriately responses to these men.
here you are:
http://i42.tinypic.com/25uns7r.png
http://i40.tinypic.com/2crmzcn.png
Two bloggers made her in to a victim, and demanded that we accept their version of events. They accused men of being rapists, who were little more than poor internet flirts, and appointed themselves white knight of female kind.
I resent that.
You were told not to make excuses for the posting of rape threats online. You disregarded this instruction.
1) she’s a kid. What is wrong with you?
2) where did she “accept flirtation?”
3) would you also argue “did you see the skirt she was wearing?” is an excuse, too?
Why are you so desperate to excuse rape culture?
No shit I did, because in this instance it amounted to being told not to think, and just accept. I never thought I would have to say this here, but excuse me for being skeptical in nature.
1.) shes a 15 year old who was making sexual comments, I was sexually active by 14, lots of people are, I do not know her and I do not presume to know how adult she is or isn’t (as you have), but I do know that she was making adult comments.
2.) she accepted flirtation in the screen caps I have posted…go read the original reddit post for yourself, I’m a big fan of encouraging inquiry, please go look for yourself.
3.) Strawman, again, this is getting boring. Talking sexually to someone, and having them respond sexually to you is a deliberate action for both parties, and requires in its nature the consent of both parties.
There is no victim here, she made a sexual remark, people responded with contextual sexual remarks, she moved on and when later in the thread people flirted she continued to flirt back.
Desperate to excuse rape culture? Now we are just being silly. What does wanting to know the truth of a situation, and sharing that reality with others have to do with rape?
Further given the context of her original comment we can easily see that the responses were not rape based at all, they were responding to the material she gave them.
Why are you so desperate to bring rape in to the picture when no rape was committed and your alleged victim seemed largely indifferent to the whole thing?
Go read the original thread, you’re making yourself look silly.
You were told not to make excuses for the posting of rape threats online. You disregarded this instruction.
No shit I did, because in this instance it amounted to being told not to think, and just accept. I never thought I would have to say this here, but excuse me for being skeptical in nature.
So, YES, no excuse for rape threats, BUT…what about my freedom of thought? You’re not even implying that you think there were no rape threats and feel that you should say so. Your position so far has been:
.
this blaming of men is excessive;
this is because women can be bad too;
.
there is nothing wrong with men making misogynistic remarks to a young teenager
if she “invites” it (she deserves it?)
.
so they aren’t misogynistic remarks.
.
1) she’s a kid. What is wrong with you?
1.) shes a 15 year old who was making sexual comments, I was sexually active by 14, lots of people are, I do not know her and I do not presume to know how adult she is or isn’t (as you have), but I do know that she was making adult comments.
Ah! the good old YES, she’s a kid, BUT…she was making sexual comments, so her being a kid doesn’t count, and you were sexually active at 14, so her being a kid doesn’t count; you don’t know her, although you know that she’s a kid; you do not “presume” to say how adult she is, (though you know that she is a kid), yet you still presume to know that she was making adult comments, EVEN THOUGH YOU KNOW THAT SHE IS A KID!!!
.
Quite seriously, have you any idea what you are trying to say?
.
2.) she accepted flirtation in the screen caps I have posted…go read the original reddit post for yourself, I’m a big fan of encouraging inquiry, please go look for yourself.
Azkyroth is off on a tangent here, and you ought to be adult enough to realise that this point is irrelevant. There is no excuse whatever for adult men to treat a 15-year-old as a grown woman on any level, especially sexual, and there is no excuse for men to treat even an adult woman to misogynistic remarks, let alone a young girl.
.
Talking sexually to someone, and having them respond sexually to you is a deliberate action for both parties, and requires in its nature the consent of both parties.
There is a reason why there is an age of consent. She’s a kid. Get it into your head. (And before you start shrieking, the reason why is the point).
.
There is no victim here, she made a sexual remark, people responded with contextual sexual remarks, she moved on and when later in the thread people flirted she continued to flirt back.
There is a victim, and she is your victim no less than she is the victim of those disgusting perverts.
.
Desperate to excuse rape culture? Now we are just being silly.
I would put it differently: I really don’t think you realise what you are doing.
.
What does wanting to know the truth of a situation, and sharing that reality with others have to do with rape?
You know, you do have a curiously consistent tendency to translate the subjunctive into the indicative (speaking figuratively here) without realising what it does to your understanding (you talk of sharing a reality which is still only speculative). I’ve noticed this already. Here it is further confused by the fact that you can’t remember from one end of the sentence to the other what the subject of the search for truth is (is a culture of rape implicit in the situation or isn’t it?).
.
Further given the context of her original comment we can easily see that the responses were not rape based at all, they were responding to the material she gave them.
So they were, but they shouldn’t have been: that is the first and most important point. The second point is, a good many of the responses are rape-based. In translation, “responding to the material she gave them” means (1) they’re not rape-based because they were only responses and (2) it’s her own fault, so they aren’t rape-based.
.
Why are you so desperate to bring rape in to the picture when no rape was committed and your alleged victim seemed largely indifferent to the whole thing?
Azkyroth is right. They shouldn’t have been behaving as they were. And your observation that the girl seemed largely indifferent is another of the unjustified presumptions which you nevertheless presume. “Largely” by the way, is a weasel-word, and “no rape was committed” is a weasel-phrase.
.
Finally, get it into your head that because she is a kid adults have a duty to ensure that she comes to no harm even when she behaves unwisely or foolishly. Even if you are right in thinking that she has suffered no emotional damage (and you can’t actually have any idea of that) she could still have received moral damage from the encouragement to behaviour that she thinks, or is invited to think, is “cool”.
.
Mallorie, your arguments are perilously close to saying that if a girl behaves badly, that gives men a licence to do so. There is also a very serious problem implicit in that there is no equivalent of “boys will be boys” for girls: if a girl makes some earthy comment, it just is a sexual invitation. Mere youthfulness is never an explanation for girls.
What was that about strawmen?
Not “rape.” Rape culture. As in, the set of attitudes and behaviors in the broader society which enable and embolden rapists and allow them to evade punishment. Attitudes like “if a woman* ever expresses sexuality in any way, this is carte blanche for any advances men want to make” and “joking about rape is no big deal. Can’t you take a joke?” and “the distinction between ‘girl’ and ‘woman’ is only as important as entitled men want it to be.” Attitudes your posts ooze.
…although I don’t know why anyone’s bothering given that you apparently see “blood and tears make good lubricant” as “flirtation.”
“Well, I call it ‘blood’ detective. I suppose you’d write it up as ‘graffiti’…”
Actually No, This was not a rape threat, Asking questions and discussion were the avenue for that discovery, and thats awesome.
Nothing you said above in any way has anything to do with what I said, you have put words in my mouth. No “yes but”. Rather a open wholehearted no.
If you would like I can finish every paragraph with “I see no reason those comments should be called rape threats”. It seems obvious at this point though.
And, yes as the argument has progressed and as I have found new information, my argument has shifted to address the new evidence.
.
Again, No. I disagree with your premise, they were not misogynistic, they expressed no arbitrary hate of women. They were sexual and explicit, if you would like to try to make the case that all sexually explicit remarks are misogynistic in nature then you still have all your work cut out for you.
Again…No, no “yes but”. I provided an anecdote, if that bothers you fine, understandably anecdotes are not awesome for debate.
So facts: 13% of people age 15 have self reported experiencing vaginal intercourse. 22% by age 16.
I have no idea where this girl falls in those stats, but its absurd for me to impose my concept of propriety on everyone under the age of 18 and call them children in this regard.
That being said, No I would not call her a child, or as you all prefer a kid.
Let me say that again, No, this is not a settled point, No I do not know shes a kid
Further she opted to use adult language and conduct herself in a sexually “adult” manner, this is the only information about her to work with, and no I will not disregard it.
It would probably make a lot more sense if you stopped creating strawmen to beat up. I am not saying what you seem to think I am saying.
If I stopped responding to the irrelevant I wouldn’t have much to say. Azk thought they made a point, I addressed it.
I will add, you should stop calling them adult men, plenty stated there age as 16. Stop assuming information you do not have.
You know, age of consent is 15 in plenty of US states right? Sorry I respect her autonomy too much to file her away in the “too young to be responsible for her words” category.
Also, telling a woman she is “shrieking” is probably one of the most condescending bullshit guy things I have encountered. Interesting article on the concept:
http://thecurrentconscience.com/blog/2011/09/12/a-message-to-women-from-a-man-you-are-not-%E2%80%9Ccrazy%E2%80%9D/
While I gather that this is supposed to be a point, and an insulting one on top of that, you really have done remarkably well at saying nothing at all.
And I really don’t think you realize how terribly, innocently in denial you are.
No again.
The curious tendency is to somehow make myself wholly un-understood by you.
The reality I am referring to is simply that the comments in question were not just to an innocent picture of a sweet girl showing her Christmas present.
But rather in response to a young woman describing herself as prepping her ass for something. The reality that the comments were given to us totally out of context.
Hope that clears that up for you.
Who says they shouldn’t have been? Not I. Maybe they were in bad taste, but that is as far as I would go. You’ll note some of the comments were edited to include the fact that they were for humor only. Why on earth is it a foregone conclusion to you that they shouldn’t have responded? Again, some stated their age as 16, is a 15 year old girl allowed to make a tasteless joke, and her 16 year old male counterpart not allowed to respond in kind?
Also….get ready for it…No they are not rape based because they…you ready….have nothing to do with rape
I dont know if you know how to read reddit comments so I’ll explain.
Girl: bracin’ mah anus
Boy: it goes in easier if you relax (or whatever)
Its not rape based because it has nothing to do with rape, it has to do with her anal status as braced
No, “Largely” addresses the fact that she made one mildly nonplussed comment about the dirty crap and then returned to making cracks about being naked in a penthouse.
Honestly I have no issue with how she responded, she can make all the naked and single in a penthouse jokes she wants, the sarcasm was the most amusing thing she said in the whole thread.
It is fair from this observation to assume that she was largely unbothered. Further she went on to make a new post with a new account saying she fine, she only addressed being bothered by people accusing her of “karma whoring” and the idiocy and shallowness that entails.
Now that I have fairly justified it, I hope you understand that in no way was it an unjustified presumption. You (all?) assuming it was seriously distressing is the unjustified presumption.
And again no, saying “no rape was committed” its a fucking statement of absolute fact.
I feel like I’m talking to a southern baptist. Since when is stating a fact “weaselly”? Shit.
This has nothing to do with misogamy, and everything to do with you using your personal standards to judge.
I can only assume that you’re old enough to have forgotten what 15 is like. I don’t mean that as an insult.
I have not appointed myself this woman’s Saviour, nor to I presume to know that she needs or wants saving. Further I don’t presume to call her actions “unwise”. Nor am I going to be the arbiter of “cool” on her behalf.
Honestly your whole above statement is insulting and demeaning as hell, arguably more so than some people cracking buttsex jokes and treating her as the adult she has opted to present herself as.
Learn to respect autonomy.
Only because you have opted to read them that way.
My argument (post discovery of ass prep post) has simply been that this seems to be a simple case of someone posting a dirty comment while being cute, and being responded to possibly in bad taste, and probably too vigorously. No victims, no rape threats.
To take a page from your book, this is why we have laws about what constitutes a threat.
Again her status as a victimized child is not a foregone conclusion. Please keep that in mind.
and lastly my motive for replying to this long ass post at all:
TL;DR what you talkin’ about Willis?
Did you hurt yourself making this ridiculous and transparently stupid twisting of fact?
Does making an actual argument matter at all to you, or do you just think its cool to title yourself as “rational”?
Actually, fuck that, maybe you should ask these lady bloggers if weaving a tale of an innocent girl-child happy about christmas, when the reality was a one of the OP posting about her asshole, and (albeit sarcastic) penthouse nudity was a twisting of facts so ridiculous it induced pain.
Those initial screencaps were deliberately falsified in order to manufacture an “incident”. You’ve been caught, people. Give it up already. You’re only digging yourself in deeper. And good job undermining the credibility of a legitimate concern by making it look like we must resort to creating fake examples. Thanks for nothing, bozos. 🙁
I disagree with your premise, they were not misogynistic, they expressed no arbitrary hate of women.
I see this a lot–this attempt to define misogyny out of existence. Folks have no trouble taking “misanthropy” to mean mere “dislike”, “distrust” or “contempt” rather than outright hatred–it can just mean taking jaundiced view of humanity, etc. Yet “misogyny” needs to be strictly and narrowly defined as white-hot and violently expressed HATRED of women– in this case, with the added requirement that it be “arbitrary” (whatever that means exactly).
In general I’ve noticed that people who require strict proof of seething hatred of all women before using the word “misogyny” require no such stringency for the word “misandry”.
Interesting, that.
Nah. Making fun of the lengths to which ridiculous people will go to make ridiculous non-arguments and defend them ridiculously is way more fun.
Certainly there is no chance of changing someone’s mind, when their views on a subject are ideological in nature. I am satisfied however that this comments section will stick around, and be indexed by google, and those with a skeptical mindset can come and read the comments, the raging vitriol (from some, certainly not all) and most importantly, links to what actually happened, rather than a curated, packaged ‘safe’ opinion.
There they can make up their own mind about what happened in the incident, and also catch a glimpse of the responses one might expect from the most ideologically inclined if one decides to voice a dissenting opinion.
Good day.
telling a woman she is “shrieking” …
I didn’t say you were. I was only trying to forestall the irrelevant objection about age of consent which I thought you might otherwise make, and which in fact you did make. I did not mean “shrieking” to come over as some sort of insult. I am sorry if you thought it was. I have no wish to insult you.
.
If I stopped responding to the irrelevant I wouldn’t have much to say.
.
and lastly my motive for replying to this long ass post at all:
TL;DR what you talkin’ about Willis?
That’s that, then.
Tea: I think concern trolls are supposed to be a little subtler.
To all the men who agree that this sort of thing is disgusting: Thank you. It’s good to know you’re there.
I don’t think that decent men need to be ashamed of being men, any more than I need to be ashamed of being from the same city as a serial killer.
@#8 Ian
Tiny penis syndrome. Duh. 😉
Seriously, is there a term besides “man” that we can apply to the low-foreheaded, brain-damaged things that produce comments like that? Because I don’t want to have the same term applied to me that’s applied to that… thing.
Thank you to Jafafa Hots and others, i know what insults to expect next time i have a dissenting view.
#womyncallmethings. 🙁 🙁 🙁
On the other hand, continuing the metaphor if you were insisting that the city police should have been disbanded and their budget devoted to PR efforts to reassure the world that the whole city isn’t as bad as the person stalking it, that would be a cause for shame.
Or, for that matter, if you’d overheard one of the victims say “ugh, my feet are KILLING me” and decided on that basis that he/she “invited it” and “wasn’t a victim.”
Well chosen ridicule would have more effect on the guys who do this stuff than any amount of patient explanation or angry reactions. They want to offend, shock and make people angry. When they succeed that gives them a feeling of power. It’s juvenile, regardless of the age of the poster.
The person saying those things probably has a terrible time relating to women hecause he never learned to get past the “girls are yucky” stage. His Daddy was probably either absent or batshit crazy himself. Probably he still resents Mommy telling him not to play with his little wee-wee in public.
He’s really more to be pitied, but he still needs to learn to be civil.
It may be a bit late as I’m not sure if Mallorie is still reading this, but I thought this needed to be addressed:
Except that Rebecca Watson DID include that in her screencap. Context was originally present, not left out.
There also seem to be other parts of Rebecca’s post that you didn’t read (or skimmed over, perhaps), because you seem to think that all the comments were harmless flirtation, not about rape. What about the ones that mention the age of consent being 15, so abduction would be the only charges filed? “You call it kidnapping, I call it surprise adoption”? Still harmless flirtation?
As for your contention (expressed here and in the letter that Penn linked to) that misogyny is not present: what about the posts claiming that women show themselves in pictures of objects (presumably out of vanity), and men show the objects by themselves? No gender-based stereotyping there, either?
One young person’s lack of boundaries (very common at that age) is not an excuse for the behavior of men young and old in that thread.The older ones are modeling behavior there or trying to be all hip and rapey so the kids don’t attack them… who knows?
I too became a sexually active smart ass at that age…trying to fit in and win acceptance in boy town I have said and done a lot of things that in retrospect are regrettable. I like you Mallory consider myself sex positive. Objecting to the 1700 upvote rape jokes got is not “condemning all men”- It’s calling out the culture of reddit in that subreddit – and the response of a lot of men to that calling out which basically amounts to “shut up bitches this is the interwebs” – Having been on the interwebs since before you were born I can tell you this is not what the more visionary men and women had in mind.
I like that hash tag. Really says it all, doesn’t it?
I am really tired of the phrase “woman logic” being thrown around.
[…] this behavior, the only people who are concerned are “thin-skinned pussies” and “irrational cunts.” That means that if you–yes, you–don’t speak up when something like this […]
[…] me getting targeted with ugly, hateful venom and brutal threats of rape and other violence. (Like this one, in which I was advised to fuck myself with a […]
I know that this thread is now dead, but for any leftover perusers: This is in response to three screen caps posted by Mallorie Nasrallah, from the infamous Carl Sagan cum bloody anal rape Reddit thread.
http://i44.tinypic.com/23mn3x1.png
I actually got the impression that she was just being funny, making a South Park-esque comment, if you like. She explained later, “I said it as a childish alternative to bracing myself.” In any case, suppose that she definitely meant to introduce something sexual to the discussion. It’s okay to make a sexual innuendo, or to flirt, but it’s very different to make descriptive, explicit and violent sexual remarks or offers. I also wouldn’t say that she encouraged the Reddit users’ responses, because she wrote what she wrote, and they had full agency to choose what they wrote.
http://i42.tinypic.com/25uns7r.png
In this case, I would suggest that she was trying to make the situation a bit nicer for herself by joking along with the other posters. A previous poster, NukeThePope, made this post http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/comments/nqdg2/guys_post_pictures_like_this_girls_post_pictures/ (starts with “Allow us men…”) and then used a lot of cuss and abusive words when people said that what he said was creepy for them. She was being tongue-in-cheek, but she gave the “right answer”, made the posters happy, and avoided a lot more anger and abuse. If I’m correct in my analysis, then I both admit that I’ve done the same thing before, and feel sad that it’s so easy for women to believe that it’s acceptable to sexualise ourselves (even jokingly) to avoid uncomfortable situations/treatment 🙁
http://i40.tinypic.com/2crmzcn.png
totlatot is her IRL boyfriend. totlatot: “By “back off, she’s mine” I mean back off, because she is literally my girlfriend. In real life.”
I’m glad to hear that you feel comfortable and welcome as a woman in your community – that’s what a lot of people are aiming for.
My quotes are from http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/nq7s4/what_my_super_religious_mother_got_me_for . I’m so sorry. I don’t know how to make them into screen caps, or make them easier to find. My strength is not in internetting.
@Greta: I’m sorry that you’ve found yourself in the position of tanking crap like this for the community, but I do want to thank you for doing it. It’s genuinely hard to see from a position of privilege, and your blog has helped a lot. Of course, now I’m terrified for my daughter, but my thanks is genuine.
@Mallory: Let me “Yes, but” you back: She did make sexual comments, and Yes, that makes some tiny but insignificant amount of difference, BUT while “Girl makes sexual comment, receives violent rape threats” is, I suppose, technically less bad than “Girl randomly receives violent rape threats” it’s still appalling. It’s still awful, it’s still totally not acceptable.
It’s much more important to talk about how bad *both* of those statements are then it is to talk about how much worse one is than the other. There’s no conspiracy, it’s just that people looking at the sexual hostility think that Lunam’s comments are no excuse and therefor not relevant.
I don’t care how much less awful it is if a girl “asks for it”, I care about how appalling it is that such vileness is spewed at girls and women like Lunam and Greta, and I care about what we can do about it, in the hope that my kids can grow up into a less toxic culture.
I would add, on a slightly more up-beat note, that you can’t see the worst of those comments any more. Last week when this storm hit, “Blood is nature’s lubricant” had something like 3 times as many upvotes as downvotes, and now the bulk of the offensive crap has been downvoted to oblivion and roundly criticized, and the top comment is an actual discussion of related books, instead of the toxic crap.
[…] That’s the only takeaway message I can get from this open letter to the skeptic community, which apparently came as a direct response to her active participation in this discussion at Greta’s. […]
[…] do not want to be in unity with atheists who tell me to fuck myself with a knife. I do not want to be in unity with atheists who say they hope I get raped, who tell me to choke on […]