This is a parody. I am being sarcastic. No bison were harmed in the making of this parody.
I have a question. It is this. Why does this one woman that I hate and that a lot of people hate get so much sexist abuse via the Internet? Why why oh why?
While this post applies to several prominent and outspoken women in the atheist community that I hate, I’m going to focus on this one woman because she seems to be the easiest target for most of the sexist online vitriol. Her name is Annabelle Jones and everybody hates her, including me. That makes it much easier for me to focus on her, because there is so much hate of her sloshing around out there already that I don’t have to think, I can just type. All those other prominent and outspoken women in the atheist community that I hate are just as bad though, don’t make any mistake about that. You know who they are. We all know who they are. We all hate them. Right? Right? We all hate those prominent outspoken women. Who doesn’t hate prominent outspoken women? I ask you.
First of all, let me say this. If you’re engaging in anything other than legitimate criticism of her arguments or behavior, I beg you to stop. Don’t be mean. It demonstrates to people who already despise atheists that atheists are immoral, and confirms their worst fears.
There, now that’s out of the way, I’ll explain why Annabelle Jones (whom I hate) gets so much sexist abuse. I do not believe that Jones is getting trolled because she’s a woman. Many vocal women on the Internet do not get any negative sexual attention, provided they haven’t been vocal on the Internet for too long. And oddly enough, it works like this: the less you care or protest, the less online abuse you get. If you don’t care or protest at all, it totally doesn’t happen. Except when it does, of course, but that’s hardly ever, unless you’ve been around for more than a month or two. So there you go. When you get sexist abuse, just don’t say a word about it, and it will have never happened.
Having said all that, here are the reasons I see for Jones’s abuse that have little to do with her gender:
1. Prior misconduct, such as making a joke on a forum once;
2. Online attacks — which is a thing I would never do in a million years;
3. Attacks from the speaker’s platform — she disagreed with someone in the audience this one time;
4. Attacks from other feminists on her behalf;
5. Hypocrisy: for example, using female sexuality to get attention, then blaming others for noticing female sexuality once the goal is achieved;
6. A condescending attitude toward anyone who disagrees with her;
7. An inability to accept criticism and deal with it productively;
8. Use of abusive language and gendered slurs;
9. Mistakes in presentations and speeches, going off-topic;
10. Lack of expertise or experience in many of the areas she speaks about, poor fact-checking;
11. Celebrity that many deem to be undeserved;
12. Perceived dishonesty;
13. Inability to take on a true leadership role;
14. Failure to address topics of concern to the majority of the community;
15. Immaturity;
16. Sexism;
17. Consistent troll-feeding behavior;
18. Taking the last pizza roll;
19. Parking tickets;
20. Wearing glasses;
21. Jokes;
22. Breathing;
23. Being prominent and outspoken.
This is the short list. The long list numbers 47,581,329.
Hat tip: Maria Maltseva.
Yeah. Taking the last pizza roll is beyond the pale, man. Or womyn!
You forgot Stifling Free Speech™!! I hear she’s banned people from commenting on her blog.
Notice also how every claimed fault or error or thing done one time is a reason for abuse. What the fuck? Abuse because she “fails to address topics of concern to the majority of the community”?
Y U NO UNDERSTAND MIMICRY ISN’T PARODY?
I’m just relieved to hear about the bison.
I’m always very careful about the bison.
Failing to address topics of concern is definitely a reason for abuse, because they’re minimizing said issues by not mentioning them, and telling people not to care about them.
Similarly, addressing topics of concern is definitely a reason for abuse, because they’re jumping on the bandwagon and posting on controversial topics in order to get blog hits.
Gah, without the bit at the end the pitters would have been scambling for Google to see who Annabelle Jones is! Spoil sport!
Oh come now, I wouldn’t dream of denying Maria Maltseva the credit for that thoroughly fair and reasonable post.
Yes. It’s classic confirmation bias. Things are noticed because she’s been put under a microscope by the haters and it’s all evidence against her. They’re like DAs trying to build a case against a powerful mob boss. If they can get her for income tax evasion, they’ll thwart her evil plans for sexual harassment policies and godknowswhat.
jeezus pete, if they hate her so much the logical thing to do is to not read her.
“Having breasts” should be in the shortlist.
Oh you know what, I was wrong. My eyes are now open.
Ohhhhhhh of course. Now I understand. Cephus is totes right.
Well, with a list that long, Anabelle Jones was CLEARLY asking for it.
No, it’s not a “reason for abuse”. It’s a “reason for critcism”, which fact (for some bizarre reason) “Ms. Jones”‘ many misguided, shrill, bullying defenders seem unable or unwilling to understand. “Abuse” in its many forms is unacceptable, including when it is exercised by blog-makers who inveigle or stand by while their fan(guy/gals) engage in mass harrassment in said blogs, or when counter-points are squished like ladybugs.
Other synonyms for criticism of “Ms. Jones” include “hate” and “misogynist”, at least in one particular, shrimpy corner of the universe.
If that is what you are noticing then yes, such a dedicated misconstrual is indeed a fine example of confirmation bias. Thanks!
I drew a (clumsily and hastily written) parallel on Maria’s blog with racism. Imagine a blog post titled “Why Clarence Thomas receives so much racist abuse” followed by a list of his faults.
Criticism is not the problem. If somebody is receiving racist (or sexist) abuse, that is racism (or sexism.) And that is a bad thing no matter what you think of the target of the abuse.
That, more than any other, is what’s driven the haters to their stratospheric levels of frothing at the mouth – that there are people in the secular/atheist movement are talking/writing about things that don’t make them feel better about themselves for being atheists, i.e. those which demonstrate the religious are bad/wrong/stupid.
By pointing out there are problems with the atheist community we’re undermining their means of self-assurance; it appears that they don’t have much else.
Greg B, if you’re denying Rebecca receives sexist abuse, you’re a) blind and b) in disagreement with Maria, who acknowledges it in her post.
We’re not talking about criticism. We’re talking about sexist abuse, how it is a problem, and how there is no justification for it.
The “harassment” on Pharyngula is confined to Pharyngula’s comment threads and stays on topic. Nobody follows an unpopular commenter about making fun of their appearance or calling them by slurs that insult entire groups of people. Nobody makes rape jokes about them.
Guess what? You don’t like the commenting ethic on Pharyngula, you can easily not post there. Heck, you can even not read Pharyngula at all!
If you think that Pharyngula’s comment policy is unacceptable, fine, make that argument. Bringing it up here is just a clumsy tu quoque.
Post 16 has utterly nailed it.
I don’t know, Ophelia, I’m still concerned about the bison. If they read Maria’s post, it can’t have been good for their blood pressure.
Like Ewan, I think there is a great deal of truth in Wowbagger’s analysis in #16. I would only add that the misogynistic response to women engaged in the public sphere is hardly confined to the atheist movement.
Stacy: I think you raised a key point with your racism analogy that needs to be recognized and addressed. This happens all the time in politics. Someone will disapprove of Hillary Clinton’s political positions, yet criticize her appearance. Even liberals are constantly doing this — look at what happens to Anne Coulter — it’s offensive to both women and trans-people. So yes, it is evidence of sexism in our society; I just don’t think that it’s in any way limited to atheist circles.
But there is one aspect to the RW drama that make it different: this began with accusations of misogyny and assumptions about men. I think that’s what incited even more sexism than is typical under normal circumstances. But I’m not saying that any of the sexism is justified. And I think that for some people, this was just an excuse to jump on the anti-feminism bandwagon. But others really did have something of value to say. Also, FWIW, I think that feminism requires a far more nuanced discussion than what’s provided on the Feminism 101 blog.
In any case, as I said back on my page, any sexist abuse is wrong, and I wish it would stop. I doubt this post will make it through moderation, but I just wanted to acknowledge your important and relevant observations.
Ophelia: Thanks for the heaps of blog traffic, but I really wasn’t trying to get your attention. Further, I don’t hate anyone — not Rebecca, and definitely not you.
Actually it all began with one man’s assumptions about women.
(and then rest, male and female, that sprang to defend him and his assumptions.)
LOL bluharmony is a mod at that blog? I’m glad I don’t read it, and disappointed that I violated my own “never read the comments on anything unfamiliar” policy.
I know this is gonna be a tough concept to grasp, captianahags, but writers generally moderate their own blogs.
Jafafa — a question isn’t an assumption.
Maria:
Do you have something specific in mind?
All I can remember are many people issuing invectives, gender based insults, rape and death threats to Rebecca Watson for her *crime* of saying “guys don’t do that”. The privilege EG displayed in approaching RW in such a manner is an aspect of the sexist culture we live in.
So this “something of value” in response to that would be…?
captainahags…
I could be wrong, (and you’re welcome to correct me, MariaM) but I think bluharmony is MariaM… she writes that blog.
MariaM… if you are bluharmoney… are you on ThinkAtheist, Atheist Nexus, or Atheist Universe? Because I recognize the bluharmony handle from one of those three sites.
As far as your blog post… you are right that sexist attacks (both misogynistic and misandrist in nature) are never justified. And that’s good. But you really are off in some of your criticism.
Did you watch the initial video that started it all? Did you see the whole spiel that got everyone pissed off at Rebecca Watson?
I just watched it again earlier today and, after over a year of being able to step back and think about this, I still don’t see what was wrong with Rebecca’s perfectly reasonable request. At no point did I ever see her grab a big brush and start painting with it. At no point was she unreasonable.
What, exactly, is so unreasonable and misandrist about “hey… please don’t corner women in hotel elevator at 4:00 in the morning and ask them to your room for ‘coffee’. It’s creepy.”? Because that seems like common sense to me.
Hell… don’t corner any stranger in an elevator to talk to them at all. Unless you know them, you are two strangers in a small, enclosed (read: claustrophobic) space that is hard to escape.
That’s really fucking creepy.
And your intentions could be as positive as you giving them $1,000,000 with no strings attached, just because. But how can they know that? We humans aren’t mind-readers, after all. All we have to judge strangers in body-language and context; and while the former can be controlled, the latter can’t. We have no control over nature and setting, after all. And when the setting is a place like a hotel elevator at 4 o’clock in the morning, you’re intentions mean nothing.
Hotel elevator
4:00 am
Total stranger
“Come to my room for ‘coffee’?”
There really is only one way to read that, IMO… and that reading is creepy as hell and in complete and total violation of personal space. And again… intentions mean nothing (though I’d argue that Rebecca read his intentions correctly; coffee at 4 am in his hotel room? Coffee my ass).
Now, I should note that I’m not at all talking about how Rebecca handled the influx of abuse. I’m one of those over here on the “Feminist side” of all this who thinks Rebecca Watson’s response to Stef McGraw was absolutely unreasonable. Stef really did not engage in personal attacks. Rebecca did; albeit mild personal attacks (the worst was that Stef didn’t understand Feminism 101 if I’m not mistaken… or am I?). I think Rebecca does deserve criticism for that.
Fine.
But (as you rightly pointed out), that still does not excuse the rape threats and misogynistic attacks.
Rebecca a celebrity? I might be tempted to call her the Richard Dawkins of feminism if he wasn’t so blind to the entrenched sexism (both misogyny and misandry) in Western, “secular” culture. She is just as active, just a forward, and perhaps occasionally just as brash, but she’s a step forwards in understanding that sexism is not just a religious problem.
Also, you’re wrong, IMO, about sexism in the atheism/skepticism community. I wrote a blog about all this (well, about bullying, but it pulls together as much as possible about this whole issue) here. That should help clarify some things, like the amount of sexism in the atheism/skepticism community.
I’m not saying it’s a majority. It’s not.
But the majority are, for some strange reason, rather insistent on ignoring it (thereby letting it continue unchallenged).
Again, that old, great analogy:
So many in the main room told us to get our own room. So we did.
And their still yelling at us for causing “deep rifts” when they’re the ones who wanted us to leave in the first place.
It seems the only way to win here is to just shut up and let the creepy shit continue until a whole lot of women and men decide to disassociate entirely with atheism all together because of attitudes that, quite frankly, should have been lost along with one’s religion. And since we’re not gonna do that… well…
*shrugs*
We do need to make a distinction between criticism which is reasoned–or at least offered in good faith–and sexism.
Unfortunately the latter has infested and sometimes piggybacks on the former.
Misogynist trolling: it’s why We Can’t Have Nice Things.
Maria, can you not see that your post in some small measure perpetuates the problem? Again, use Clarence Thomas as an example. I despise him. But imagine if, instead of a Supreme Court Justice, he were a popular blogger, espousing all the ideas he stands for, but online instead of in the SCOTUS. And imagine he had a significant number of haters–whole blogs full!–who attacked him with racist slurs and mockery.
Now imagine someone–maybe someone well-meaning, who disapproves strongly of the racism–writing a post entitled Why Clarence Thomas Receives So Much Racist Abuse.
Can you not see the problem? It’s blaming the victim. And pointing out that it’s blaming the victim is not saying that the victim is necessarily blameless in other respects. And you don’t have to like him to stand firmly against the racism.
Better to say, Racism is wrong, I stand with those who refuse to tolerate it, full stop.
Then when you want to criticize Thomas, you focus on specific things he’s said, problems with his worldview, or whatnot. But you don’t say, “Oh, I know people say awful things, and that’s really bad. But here’s why he draws all that attention,” and then make a list of his perceived faults. It’s using the latter to excuse the former. I don’t believe you meant to do that, but that’s what it amounts to.
And to be clear: I think it is ridiculous to compare Rebecca Watson to Clarence Thomas. And I think it is ridiculous for people to carry on about her, as if she were actually somebody with a great deal of power who was wielding said power to harm people. I think the hate directed at her is preposterously out of proportion to anything she’s done/perceived to have done.
I only made the analogy because I wanted to pick somebody I seriously hate, somebody well deserving of criticism, who is nevertheless vulnerable to a sort of attack which should be utterly unacceptable and should be called out no matter who its target may be.
I have said it before, and I’ll say it again: In the context of everything that’s been going on since a woman had the audacity to say “Guy’s don’t do that”, If you think the problem most in need of addressing is anything other than the insanely malevolent and sociopathic hate campaigns directed at Rebecca, Ophelia, Jen, Stephanie, Amy, Greta and pretty much every other woman who has dared to speak out against the toxic misogyny in what used to be the atheist/skeptical/humanist “communities”, you’re full of shit, and don’t expect any shred of sympathy for being lumped in with the haters.
If Rebecca’s (or Ophelia’s etc.) “critics” actually have any legitimate points to make, why can’t we see them instead of an endless flood of personal abuse as well as context-ignoring spin, distortions, JAQing off, false equivalence, misrepresentations, and lies? Oh, wait, that was the point, nevermind…
I know this is gonna be a tough concept to grasp, Maria, but I don’t keep track of everyone’s ‘nyms, nor did I dig extensively on your blog to find out, because quite frankly after reading that lovely little piece of writing (which others have done a nice job dissecting), I didn’t really want to do further reading- as I said, I violated my own policy by even glancing at the comments. Also, it’s captain, not captian.
Your list displays a petty, childish mindset towards this affair, and I would bet safe money that this attitude could be extrapolated elsewhere.
And let me just quote this little gem from the comments real quick:
. . . I’m actually just going to let that speak for itself.
One of the commenters on Maria’s fine post is someone I wouldn’t have ever expected to align with the slymers. Steve Zara would understand that bigots just throw all sorts of crap until it seems mundane. And if u lay down with canines…. But he complains about being tarred with the same brush.
No, it didn’t. It began with a perfectly valid piece of advice about social interaction – namely, that hitting on someone you’ve never spoken to before, at 4am in a hotel elevator – after she’s just spent the entire day talking about how she’s sick of being hit on at conferences – is not really a smart move.
No feminist hair on the list?
I heard Rebecca hides all her evil in her feminist hair.
I mean Annabelle who has nothing whatsoever to do with Rebecca.
(damn)
Let me mansplain it since you don’t have a penis and are incapable of understanding.
If you have a penis you know that abusing bison is the hottest thing you can do with it.
Bison can be very tasty, but it’s quite lean so you have to be careful not to overcook it or otherwise dry it out.
Which Annabelle Jones always does when she cooks Bison so…MISANDRY!!1!! or something…
Maria – I know you weren’t trying to get my attention. I never said you were. I saw your post because you posted the link to it on a Facebook Atheism page – yet another invitation for atheists in general to hate on Rebecca.
It’s bullshit to say you don’t hate her. Why the fuck would you draw up a list of 17 “reasons” for someone to get sexist abuse a year and a half into a sexist campaign against her if you didn’t hate her? You wouldn’t. It’s also bullshit to say you don’t hate me and the rest of us prominent outspokens, since you made a point of saying your post applies to us as well.
Lists of “reasons” to abuse someone are a dead giveaway of obsessive hatred.
I suppose Maria doesn’t hate Rebecca in the way Christianists don’t hate gays.
Oh, wait…
And what a validation of Elevatorgate, of Shrodinger’s Rapist this all is. Women, if a man demands your attention and your time, by God you give it to him. Why, just look at the level of shit RW gets from her self-styled ‘allies’ a year and a half later. What if elevator guy had been any one of these people?
She was absolutely right to do what she did, and say what she did after. Clearly.
*BTW, has anyone else noticed that the criticisms of RW and female bloggers, from Dear Muslima to Vacula’s “Shut up and take it”, can be applied to the atheist movement as a whole (but never is)?
For instance, the majority of people believe in (a) gods, atheists, so either start addressing topics of concern to the majority of the community or shut the fuck up, Dawkins you fucking skank.
Did I do that right, Maria? Came up with a valid reason to shit on Dawkins unrelated to his gender much like what RW gets?
Anyone familiar with Dr Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham? Yes?
Righto.
#Men aren’t oppressed and that is that,
You’re fooling no-one, SAM-I-AT*#
Also, Annabelle tortures baby bison.
*Sexism Against Men Isn’t A Thing.
Actually, No Light, sexism against men is a thing. It just comes more often then not from the men in the MRM (“I mean, if women didn’t walk around dressing all provocative n’ shit, then men wouldn’t rape them.” – saying, essentially, that men are inhuman animals with zero ability for self-control; also ignoring that rape isn’t about sex, but hatred and power).
That isn’t to say I haven’t met misandrist feminists, but they are rare in my experience, and they also seem to have a healthy dose of slut-shaming, body-shaming, and so on, along with their misandry, so they are also rather misogynistic.
And again, as I said… they seem to be rare.
The thing about misandry is that it’s ultimate source is the same kyriarchy (specifically, the patriarchy) that breeds the entrenched misogyny. So it’s all coming from the same place; hence “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too”.
Nate – sexism is institutionalised oppression of girls and women. It isn’t someone saying nasty things about women or men.
There is no institutionalised anti-white racism (in the developed world), no institutionalised heterophobia or cisphobia, or institutionalised discrimination against the able-bodied.
Reversing ‘isms in order to deflect attention and effort back toward the privileged, it’s bollocks, Sure, PHMT, I never denied it, but kyriarchically speaking, men will always occupy the top half of the pyramid.
Hating men is not “sexism”.
I can’t agree that sexism is not someone saying nasty things about women. That’s certainly not all it is, but it’s one thing it is.
So sorry Ophelia, I accidentally a modifier.
“Sexism” is not just “saying nasty things about women”.
People act as if saying “I hate men” or “I’m scared of men” is sexism. They argue that Schroedinger’s Rapist is sexist.
Usually these people are white, cisstraight, AB men who’ve never been under the heel of the majority, never felt the crushing weight of oppression, and so when someone makes a negative comment about them. they jump straight to “OPPRESSION!”.
Sorry for the mistype, meds are kicking my arse.
No Light… are you sure you’re not confusing sexism with misogyny?
And again, like I said… most of the misandrists I’ve met are from the MRM (so they are men), and it’s rooted in the kyriarchy/patriarchy.
A great example is how the wider culture views men who want to be, for example, elementary school teachers; as pedophiles (because only women work with children, and if a man wants to work with children, there must be ulterior, creepy motives). Yes, the base of it is misogynistic: traditional gender roles. But it ends up misandrist because of how these men in these situations are viewed.
I have also actually heard it argued that only men can be pedophiles. This, I would argue, is misandrist.
I cannot tell people that I love children, because I’m a straight adult male. Most people will immediately give that a meaning it simply doesn’t have. While I’m not sure if I want children of my own, I actually think children are pretty great and they’re fun to teach (usually). But a lot of people will think I’m a pedophile if I say. No one would ever think that way if it came from a woman.
Also, consider how men are treated in divorce court and child custody battles. The reason for this is, again, patriarchal gender roles, and thus comes from a position of misogyny. But that does not make it any less misandrist.
In other words, my argument is that misandry is a consequence of the inherent misogyny within the traditional gender rules invented by the patriarchy, and, IMO, is projected much more by MRAs than anyone else.
Hey, no prob, NL. Take care of yourself.
So to. clarify – oppression and. discrimination have weight behind them, majority approval, far-reaching consequences at every level.
Individual prejudice, the odd person saying “Straight people are whiny idiots” or “Christians are wilfully ignorant”, carries no weight on a macro level.
Cheers Ophelia.
I’m partially to blame. Need to stay very well hydrated on tranSdeRmal pain medication, otherwise the concentration in the bloodstream gets too high.
So if, hypothetically speaking, someone got distracted by online stuff and receiving a huge load of documentary films, then they might forget to eat and drink. Then they might fall into a dead sleep, and wake up feeling like they’d been anaesthetised.
/cough.
Nate – ‘isms need prejudice and power. No power = plain old prejudice.
Oppression and discrimination (as a result of ‘isms) only occur when there’s power behind them.
You being called a cracker? Not racism.
A trans woman saying “I don’t trust cis people, so I’m not outing myself to them”? Not oppressive.
WRT divorce, custody issues etc., still not sexism against men. Men made the rules up, that’s what patriarchy is. Men aren’t given automatic custody of children, because patriarchy has designated childcare as “women’s work”. That’s why men wanting to be around children is seen as weird.
Also, in custody cases where men ask for custody? Courts overwhelmingly rule in their favour, even with evidence of spousal abuse or child abuse, including CSA.
You’re… not saying anything I’m not saying, NL.
I’m not at all suggesting that misandry and misogyny are equal in any way, shape, or form… they aren’t. Misogyny has probably ten times as much baggage and is, in general, a hell of a lot worse.
Again… I’m arguing that misandry is a consequence, or by-product, of misogyny.
In other words, it’s the Patriarchy itself, and misogynistic attitudes towards women, that creates misandry. And beyond that, misandry comes more often from men than anywhere else (again, see the MRM… especially A Voice for Men; Dave Futrelle at Manboobz is damn good at pointing it out).
I’m not arguing about misandry as an oppressive tool, here. It really isn’t. Thus, it isn’t equal to misogyny in any sense of the word. I’m simply arguing that is is a thing; just not anywhere near the same level.
In other words, it is anti-male prejudice… just without the power/oppression.
Nate – last comment from me for now, because my eyes are literally crossed, and each word is taking whole minutes to type.
You were talking about “sexism against men”, I said “SAM-I-AT – sexism against men is not a thing”, and you objected.
It still isn’t a thing, Sexism and misogyny can have fatal consequences. They are weapons to hurt women in a patriarchal society.
Misogyny is rampant, entrenched, and minimised. “Misandry” is a way for men to participate in the Oppression Olympics. “Misandry” is “Wah she said men are rapists” or “some radical feminists hate men ”
Any bias against men that you’ve mentioned, like custody, childcare etc. is BECAUSE of how the patriarchy has defined femininity and acceptable states of womanhood.
Patriarchy can fix the problems it caused. Men. who think it’s hurting them can work to change it, dismantle it. Men made it, they can break it. They have that power.
However, blaming women and feminism, a la MRAs, is not the way to do that. Claiming that the white man is being oppressed, that evil libruls are stopping men playing with toddlers, and that affirmative action is bigotry, is just completely wrongheaded.
But, that’s what we keep seeing anyway. Every time women dare to speak about harassment, assault, rape, sexism, we’re met with “MISANDRY!” and “WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?”
Can’t you see how exhausting that is?
As for Futrelle, IDGAF about him, and won’t, until he can show that he really understands, and sees the need for, intersectionality in all social justice spaces.
Oww, my hand.
Feel better, No Light. I hope when you come back you’ll read me again, because I think you missed what I’m saying.
I agree with you. I’ve not said anything different than what you just said. What I’m saying is that misandry is a real thing, just not in the way MRAs insist on defining it (as equal to or worse than misogyny, which it isn’t), and not created by feminists like MRAs claim.
I’ve also pointed out that MRAs themselves are misandrists. In other words, I think the vast majority of the misandry (that I’ve seen, at least) is coming from the men in the MRM; in other words, the very people who use misandry as a way to play in the “Oppression Olympics” are the ones who are misandrist for the most part.
(BTW… Dave Futrelle at Manboobz mocks misogyny at MRM sites like A Voice for Men, r/mensrights, etc; he’s a feminist ally and runs a damn good blog, IMO; you should check it out).
So I’m not saying what you think I’m saying, in other words. We actually agree.
That said, feel better No Light. Seriously. Pain sucks. Get better.
Misandry only exists as the differently gendered, and generally lesser, oppression on another axis. Saying it, as if it’s a stand-alone thing, marks you for a fool.
There is no such thing as misandry.
He’s no friend of the queers, though I’ll say no more than that.
…did that stop being a localized issue, or did he start sucking at racism or something too?
The worst sentence has to be,
‘Real people are getting hurt, and often, those people are not the targets you intend.’
Comment 20, Maria,
Thanks for the wonderful comic parody of an airhead. Particularly clever was your claim that Rebecca started it with accusations of misogyny. As though she’d no right to defend herself and to call a spade as spade as she saw it.
Rebecca did not start it! They started it! They invaded Poland!!
Maria:
‘But others really did have something of value to say.’
This is the same as Justin Vacula’s tactic of quoting the harmless part of the nasty threat Ophelia received, as evidence that she’s overreacting. You know that part is not what we’re talking about.
I am an old-school, liberal feminist bag. Why are you trying to undo the progress made by the women’s movement? Why align your self with a group whose perverted aim is to abuse women? How perverted is it for women to do it?
Remember the guy who thought his wife deserved rape threats? That she was somehow virtuous in not talking back to men? His stated purpose in life is to undermine the feminist movement. I hope you’re a poe, but then, I’m an optimist.
Maria:
‘But there is one aspect to the RW drama that make it different: this began with accusations of misogyny and assumptions about men. I think that’s what incited even more sexism than is typical under normal circumstances.’
Circular argument! WHY SHOULD THESE BE THE NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES? Ahem. Are you mad?
Oh. Ha ha ha – ‘assumptions about MEN’????
This is the last time I’m going to say this:
I’m am NOT TALKING ABOUT OPPRESSION! Hence the whole “all forms of bigotry are not equal” thing. Bigotry as oppression applies only to misogyny, racism, transphobia, homophobia, and so on.
The opposite of all that is expected bigotry (the oppressed hating/being prejudiced against the oppressors). Bias against the privileged is a thing. It’s not a bad thing… it’s not going to win any Oppression Olympics… it has legitimate reasons (I can perfectly understand why a person of color would hate white people, why a homosexual would hate straight people, why a woman would hate men, why a transgendered person would hate cisgendered people, why a poor person would hate rich people, etc)… but it’s still a thing.
In other words, it’s the kind of bias oppressors should fully expect to be thrown in their direction.
Misandry IS A THING resulting from the unintended consequences of patriarchy. I’ll give three examples:
1. The woman’s place is in the home. She doesn’t get to have a career (or make money) because she is the one who raises the children.
Unintended consequences: Men who like to work with and/or raise children are looked at with suspicion regardless of the actual motives, while women who do so rarely, if ever, are.
Men more often then not lose custody battles and thus pay the bulk of child support.
Men also generally get the short end of the stick in divorce court.
2. Men are stronger than women. Women are weak and cannot take care of themselves.
Unintended consequences: Men can’t ever be raped, especially by women. Men cannot be abused by women. If such happens, the man is either believed to be lying, or ostracized, laughed at, and generally ignored.
(Note: yes, that’s what normally happens to women who are abused, too. I’m not denying or minimizing that in any way, shape, or form. The reactions just have different reasons.)
3. The man’s job is the breadwinner. As the man is more responsible, the man makes the money.
Unintended consequences: Men take the bulk of the more dangerous jobs. Men who can’t perform those kinds of jobs are ostracized and worse.
Men who, for whatever reason, don’t/can’t hold jobs are looked down upon by society.
Misandry is a thing that we men did to ourselves. By creating situations in which men are privileged, we also ended up with situations in which men can’t win. Men are treated like shit in divorce court precisely because we wanted to keep the women at home.
In other words, misandry is our fault. We set up a system in which these types of consequences are inevitable. And the only way to change them… to create a truly egalitarian society… is to tear down the patriarchy, end traditional gender roles, and stop recognizing gender beyond biology.
Basically, it’s Feminism (not women as such, but the movement and the women and men within it) that’s going to ultimately create an egalitarian society. If MRAs could see that, their world would be a hell of a lot better. As it is, they are quite misandrist as well as misogynistic, specifically because they are (I think willfully) ignorant of this fact, and push that old lie that men are baseless, inhuman animals controlled entirely by our penises with no ability to override them. That is an “anti-man” outlook. That is male-hatred. They may blame women (a pathetically stupid outlook), but they hate their own gender.
I talk about misandry because I’ve experienced it first-hand. I’m a not-that-attractive, not very strong, 25-year-old virgin (not by choice) male.
Because I do not fit the societal image of “the Man”, I’m treated like shit. Men constantly treat me as if I’m broken and need to be fixed. They tell me to “lower my standards”. I lost count years ago how many times women and men saw fit to explain to me just how ugly I am because, in their estimation, I didn’t know that already (and yes, it still happens today). For a few years back in grade school people questioned my sexuality because I appeared to not show any interest in women (which was not true… I was intimidated). I recently had a guy ask me how itchy my vagina was… and he asked not because I said I was a feminist ally or because I expressed my belief that women are human beings who deserve to be respected as such (politics/social justice were not even close to being discussed at this particular party), but because I admitted that I found Football boring and incomprehensible (it really makes no sense whatsoever to me… I find it stupid, and I find the cult that’s sprung up around it to be beyond disgusting… it is this cult, after all that allows shits like Jerry Sandusky to get away with the shit he got away with for so fucking long (as one example).
And yes, I’ve gotten shit from women, too, although nowhere near as much. Two weeks ago I had a woman tell me that I can’t be trusted because I have a penis. I quote: “I don’t trust men. I don’t trust you. Men have penises. This is what controls you. The simple act of you looking at me is your penis.” She wasn’t kidding.
Now, I did have another group of people, mostly women themselves, come to my defense. In my experience, that anti-male bias seems to come more from men than it does from women.
That is misandry as I understand it. It is a problem of patriarchy; a consequence of misogyny. It is the result of centuries of gendered oppression against women. If you want, we can refrain from calling misandry a form of bigotry. I’m very much in favor of that.
In fact, I’ll do that. Above, I used the word “bias” in reference to it instead of bigotry most often (though I did use the word “bigotry” a couple times, but I’ll go ahead and say I was wrong with that), so I’ll go with it. Misandry isn’t a form of bigotry. It does not result in oppression of men in any real sense, and thus it’s not bigotry as such. This does not change the fact that misandry is a thing, however.
Call it a bias instead of bigotry. I think “bias” is much more accurate.
On another note… I only started reading Manboobz recently. Dave’s got a history?
As expected, your list of ‘misandry’ is less ‘anger from the oppressed’ than ZOMG PATRIARCHY ISN’T SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS FOR EVERY SINGLE DUDE 24/7″. If I did that reaction face thing, I’d probably have quite a shocked face for you
Let me sum up your examples before getting into the specifics: “OH GOD ITS SO HARD BEING AWESOME”.
Which is why they are promoted to positions of power in institutions that deal with children, like schools.
Child support which is less costly than either the cost of raising the child, or the cost of hiring someone else to raise your kid.
Bullshit. I’ve seen them skate off with very few obligations despite dealing with housewives who were complete housewives; you know the people ethically owed an actual alimony. Working mothers, the majority, get even less.
You’ve never seen the speed with which they rush to prosecute the gay, have you?
You’ve never actually been to court to watch the effects of what happens when some subhuman harpy abuses a human, have you?
Spectacular. Hit post early. Now I have to get through your bullshit immediately.
Which is why classism flows from the poor to the rich. Wanna think that one through, smart guy?
FYI: Work isn’t that generally lethal in the USA. Most of the workplace fatalities, not counting the military (and possibly counting the military), are from driving. And women aren’t barred from quite a few, if not most, indirectly lethal positions.
Further FYI: Women want in on those jobs. Any time you idiots want to stop having that pity party, we’d love those well-paying-for-their-education-level ‘dangerous jobs’.
“Welfare queens” are men?
Oh for fuck’s sake.
I was going to add htis in later, but as I said, I hit post too soon, so here’s fine.
Does your fool ass know what alimony is? It’s recompense for destroying your resume and career to watch the kids.
The part I actually intended for here, it isn’t misandry that individual men don’t win every instance of patriarchy. Everything you mentioned – even ‘men can’t be raped by women’ is ultimately a class benefit of men, because far more men benefit from it than are hurt by it.
I think you need to stop living in a fantasy world where patriarchy hurts men more than it helps them.
Dammit, NateHevens never said anything remotely like that.
@Rutee Katreya
NateHevens framed his examples as cases of PHMT, so your angry rant was completely beside the point.
Also, the way you are belittling problems like men not being taken seriously when they are physically or sexually abused by women due to patriarchal stereotypes (“Let me sum up your examples before getting into the specifics: “OH GOD ITS SO HARD BEING AWESOME”.”) is both disgusting and also a nice example of misandry in action.
I don’t care how much boilerplate you put in when the meat and potatoes of your post is “OH GOD MISANDRY IS SO BAD”. There is no substantive sexism against men. And he got started because someone else said as much, and he’s just got to get onto this soapbox.
You mean like his whining that sexism against men is totes mcgotes a thing, on a post about how Marcotte doesn’t deserve what she gets?
Today, you learned the difference between ‘summed up’ and ‘going into excruciating detail’. That was the bulk of what he listed. And while he is overblowing the problem, the reason I’m not entirely gainsaying that particular one is because that one is actually true, unlike the bulk of what he’s listing as a ‘downside.
No institutionalization, no misandry. The only actual misandry that exists is the differently gendered, and generally lesser for it, oppression of men on another axis (It would hardly make sense to call the gendered oppression of latin@ men misogyny, for instance)
If by that you mean that he tried to explain that PHMT is actually a thing, then yes.
He listed three examples. You think two of those are BS and agree that the third is a genuine problem. Two out of three is technically the “bulk of what he´s listing” but even if you are right that the two examples you disagree with are indeed BS, your response was still uncalled for (especially you lecturing him on patriarchy helping men more than it hurts them because he said so himself *many* times).
There is individual sexism and there is institutionalized sexism. Even if you are right on there being no institutionalized misandry whatsoever (and I´m not saying that you are wrong on that) individual misandry still can be, and occasionally is, a thing.
He listed 8, loosely gathered under three headings, and only one of those was close to accurate (and not entirely, for that matter) and given that he’s aware that DV isn’t taken seriously in general, you’d think he’d realize it’s not ‘misandry’ that motivates that. Well, no, I wouldn’t actually, but one might in general think that if they weren’t used to WATMZ.
7 of 8 is pretty unequivocally ‘the bulk’.
Goodness me, you’re right, however else should I respond to yet another derail of how bad the menz have it on a feminist blog, on a post about how -ist speech is made the norm about a member of an oppressed group.
I’ll let you know when boilerplate starts deterring me, but today isn’t that day.
And “Shut the hell up, men quantifiably have it as bad as you say and people are trying to talk about women” is still not it.
quantifiably do not have it as bad as you say, rather.
As to boilerplate, seriously, “I know misandry isn’t that bad, but I’m going to go interrupt feminist shit so I can talk about it anyway because it’s just SO BAD” is boilerplate. It betrays no understanding whatsoever at the topic at hand.
This is wrong on so many levels…
Most of the points he mentioned have at least a kernel of truth to them and some are completely accurate, for example men not being taken seriously when they are abused by women due to patriarchal stereotypes – this is not “close to accurate”, this is completely accurate. And DV “isn´t taken seriously in general” ? You´ve just got to be kidding.
If you are offended by the fact that PHMT is indeed a thing, then yes, you will occasionally be offended when you read feminist blogs.
And one alternative way to respond would have been pointing out that you´d like the thread to stay on topic instead of the angry completely beside-the-point rant you actually delivered.
I´m not sure if you mean NateHevens or me. I did not say and I did not imply that women should shut up or that men have it just as bad as women in any way, shape or form.
And neither did NateHevens. He actually said the exact opposite. Explicitly. Many times.
You are simply lying.
A kernel of truth, wrapped in bullshit, is still bullshit. Even that isn’t true, however. Class benefits men receive are not ‘misandry’, even for the few they hurt. Most of those kernels he mentioned are directly and entirely tied to a class benefit men receive. You can’t unpack it and say “WELL THE DOWNSIDE IS MISANDRY”, because it isn’t sold seperately.
Oh ho, I now mistrust you greatly. I’ll grant I’m not a regular on Ophelia’s blog, but suffice it to say, I suspect you are either a dishonest asshat or an honest fool. Only a rare few misogynists pretend that DV is actually taken seriously, considering how often it’s unpunished.
Cute, but you apparently fail to understand the problem.
So when dudes launch into a completely beside-the-point rant, derailing a problem women are experiencing, it is the natural and expected response; of course nothing should be made of it, and the dude should entirely be forgiven. When a woman actually RESPONDS to that beside-the-point rant, well, that dog won’t hunt, monsignor.
And you don’t see why I might find WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ!? to be a general nuisance, nor why I am not alone in this? Aren’t you just precious. Even the very blog he’s flogging generally doesn’t (or didn’t, at least) put up with this shit, and he should be well aware that it isn’t generally acceptable.
Bullshit boilerplate, given what he actually did.
(Er, when men fight for custody, they often get it. In Earlie v Earlie, I think it was, a violent, abusive man was given custody because the judge believed it was against the best interests of the children to live with the mother, who was now in a loving lesbian relationship.)
A bit of misunderstanding here. I got the point. It was a feminist point.
If you understand “misandry” in the broader sense of “entrenched prejudices against boys / men” then the example of men not being taken seriously when they are abused by women is a very good example of misandry because this problem is caused by widespread patriarchal stereotypes.
Oh noes. Since you seem to be such a nice and honest person, I´m obviously hurt deeply by your mistrust.
Funny, I was also thinking that you are either dishonest or clueless. The prosecution and conviction rates for DV are not significantly different from most other crimes:
http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/34/1/44.full.pdf+html
While you obviosuly get it.
You lecturing him on all the things he repeatedly said himself was obviously very helpful. I mean, he was obviously just lying when he said that these problems are caused by patriarchy and that women have it much worse – he actually believes the exact opposite because… Because you say so! And what more evidence do we need ?
No no I get it, the very idea of PHMT offends you deeply and you never want to hear about it. Just tell him to stop whining and grow a pair, else he might actually think that feminism is a good thing for men and women and we wouldn´t want that to happen.
And just telling him that you´d appreciate the thread to stay on topic instead of insulting and patronizing him is obviously also a total no-go, because angry rants are so much more fun, aren´t they ?
Only if you pretended women were generally taken seriously during domestic violence, and even then, ‘men are stronger and better than women’ is the proximate cause; I’m not entirely convinced that it’s not directly connected to a class benefit men receive. For that matter, buddy boy absolutely doesn’t think it’s disconnected from a class benefit men receive, so he shouldn’t be calling it misandry at all.
…when the crime actually gets to the courts, no, they’re not. Guess what step is the part that doesn’t get done.
Right, like how he constantly negated himself by pointing out that men don’t get reamed in divorce courts, right before going “OMG MEN GET REAMED IN DIVORCE COURT”.
The specific thing I said he doesn’t really understand is that women have it worse, because…
Because you say so! And what more evidence do we need ?
Well, if you need no more than my word, I can accept that but there’s always a skeptic. If I had one, I would point at the speed with which he dashed into that derail of a thread that was very clearly about how women don’t deserve sexist slurs and death threats is evidence that he doesn’t actually understand women have it worse. Further, the sheer zeal he shows in making THIS, HERE, and NOW the place to talk about the majority (Truly, a rare space indeed is the one that helps the majority), rather than helping an actually oppressed group, which was the topic of conversation, does not speak well of his understanding.
You know, in case my word was insufficient. But I appreciate the faith you’ve placed in me.
You’re not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you? I didn’t say patriarchy doesn’t hurt men, I said ‘class benefits are not misandry’. Some men will still be hurt by those class benefits, but men as a group still benefit, and thus it is not really ‘misandry’.
There are places to talk about the parts good for men. They’re not in the middle of a post ostensibly about the death threats and slurs that Rebecca Watson receives in her skeptic-appointed position of final boss of feminism, though.
Though, I should say “‘skeptic’-appointed place…”, for the last bit. Though to date, I’m not really clear where the divide is supposed to be between atheists and skeptics, and I’m certainly not sure which is the one that complains about Watson more.
Patriarchy hurts men too. I agree.
… but that’s not misandry. That’s still consequences of misogyny. I’m not really sold on this “misandry stems from misogyny” thing.
And there are some serious problems with NateHevens’ examples.
(If he bothered to count prostitution in dangerous jobs, that category wouldn’t appear on his list, but I guess that’s not convenient.)
I linked the article for a reason…
Quote from the discussion:
“Our research has numerous strengths over prior approaches at summarizing the nature and extent of prosecution for intimate partner violence (e.g., Chalk & King, 1998; Elliott,
1989; Klein, 2004). We present data from a larger and more diverse set of reports. We employ explicit definitions and measures of prosecution and conviction. We describe and
analyze multiple quantitative measures of the reported amounts of prosecution and conviction for intimate partner violence. We provide some of the systematic empirical evidence
that Elliott (1989) found missing and which subsequent reviews have failed to incorporate in their assessments (e.g., Crowell & Burgess, 1996; Worden, 2000). Overall, based on the 135 reports from more than 170 jurisdictions in 5 countries, approximately one third of intimate partner violence offenses reported to the police result in a prosecution and three fifths of arrests result in charges being filed. Moreover, about one
third of the arrests and more than half the prosecutions result in a conviction. These findings are not quite as high as Dutton’s (1987) 53.1% conviction rate, but they do support
Klein’s (2004) assertion that prosecution rates vary across jurisdictions.”
In the UK, the prosecution and conviction rates are even higher. Many developed countries started taking DV very seriously in the nineties and changes in legislation led to higher prosecution and conviction rates.
Read #26 (his first comment, which was on the topic of the OP) and #43 (his second comment) again. If this is what you call a “speedy derail” and a “zealous attempt in making THIS, HERE, and NOW the place to talk about the majority” then I´d disagree with your judgment – six comments in total, the first one completely on topic, and the the other ones which derailed from the original topic were everything but zealous.
And I didn´t say that you claimed that PHMT is not a thing. I said that the very existence of the concept seems to offend you, but to not escalate this further I´ll retract that.
And I think that he was focussed on individual sexism while you were focussed on institutionalized sexism.
+1
That would have been a much better response to NateHevens then #60+61 IMO.
Madogoddess forbid a man actually be criticized harshly for being an ass. And I totally believe you’re being honest when you say this is a ‘better response’ when you let this asshat jabber on, and never once stopped to say “Hey, asshole, maybe be quiet, because…”
It’s almost as if the fucking OP was about sexism that actually has serious societal support.
It was his second comment, and the first one wasn’t exactly shy about pretending it was a major thing. Derailing within your second comment is pretty damn fast.
Because you despise papers that at least put an abstract in front of the paywall?
…Do you know what the actual rate of successful prosecutions is in the USA? Because it’s not ‘approximately 50%’. You’re actually actively hurting your case on at least one front….
Plausible. But then again, Europe has a habit of overestimating just how far it’s come on -ism so I am not awed by this claim.
Ah, so you do think my asshat jabber is honest, that´s a start.
Yeah… doesn´t relate to anything I said, but what the hell.
There is a link saying “ABSTRACT free”. And if you would have told me that you can´t access it (I didn´t notice because I have library access) I could have quoted key parts instead of just linking to it.
Based on the 2009 meta-analysis I linked to, an evaluation of 95 reports from US jurisdictions indicates an average rate of convictions per prosecution around 49,9%.
Seems to be pretty close to 50%. Do you have better or more recent estimates ?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
What the fuck is wrong with you, letting yet another dude whine about WATMZ, but the second someone says that this is an asshole move, you are up in arms? Fucking ‘allies’.
Do you need every connection made for you? The asshole, and you, are the only ones trying to talk about ‘individualized sexism’.
Yeah, I’m not buying a 45% drop in overall conviction rates in 5 years without being able to read the paper.
More recent? No. But there is no fucking way I am going to buy that successful prosecution fell from 80-90%, in under 10 years, with the continued erosion of the rights of the accused in that same period, without serious data. And a meta-analysis I can’t read isn’t going to cut it.
That Yuropans have an annoying habit of telling meriken they’ve solved problems they’re still well in the process of fixing, if they’re even still bothering.
Oh fuck, now I’m derailing this shit. I do hope your computer burns out, for whining at feminists defending space from ‘allies’ though.
So I have to return my cookie ? 😐
1. This is an incoherent mess of a response. Which numbers are you referring to ? Where did you get them from ? What do you mean by fell *from* 80-90% ? (are you suggesting that the proportion of prosecutions ending in convictions used to be 80-90% (if so, wtf ??) or did you mean that they fell *by* 80-90% instead ?)
2. I could send you the paper if you like.
3. “There´s no fucking way I buy that stupid peer-reviewed research because I just know that it´s wrong” is not exactly a rational approach.
Well that´s specific… Also, referring to annoying habits of “yuropans” makes about as much sense as complaining about “annoying habits of asians” – there are almost 30 countries in the european union alone, and believe it or not, they all have their own culture.
How dare you ?!
Rutee – Futrelle’s not a fan. of my ~Rainbow Coalition~ brothers and sisters, eh?
No surprise. I haven’t seen any race-related dubiousness from him, but then I’ve only ever seen stuff he’s written on other sites. But let’s just say that he’s not exactly fond of being asked not to use ableist insults to refer to the people he hates.
@Shinobu. –
I snipped it there because the keyword is “reported”.
When I worked in the criminal justice system (UK) most men freely admitted that it had taken years for their victims to make a report. But crucially, just as with serial rapists, they only admitted it if the phrase “domestic violence” wasn’t used.
Just like rape, domestic battery and familial abuse is massively under-reported. Often the police only end up on the scene because a third party has made a call to them. Maybe a concerned neighbor, a child, etc.
@No Light
Absolutely. The disagreement was not about DV being an underreported crime, it was initially about whether it is “taken seriously” (which Rutee thinks it is not, for both male and female victimes of DV) and then shifted to conviction rates.
And the conviction rates for both DV and also rape are not nearly as low as many people believe, which seems to be a significant factor for why victims of DV and rape do not report the crime – there was a high profile story in the Guardian recently about this:
“Last week, Mumsnet released a survey of its users as part of its We Believe You rape awareness campaign. Sixty-eight per cent of respondents said low conviction rates would make them hesitate to report a rape due to low conviction rates – clearly they had heard the 6% figure too.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates
You know what? I’m ending the conversation.
I caused the derail, and I’m sorry.
I’m not sorry that there are certain people who insist on misreading me no matter how clear I am (I’m not sure I can be any clearer than I have been), but I am sorry for derailing the thread.
So I’m done with this conversation.
One thing, though:
It was not that I didn’t include prostitution as a dangerous job.
I also didn’t include drug-dealing and gun-running, all for the same reason (legality). That’s a whole different discussion that quite obviously makes things look very, very different. I was talking about legally recognized jobs.