One touchingly sympathetic response to the DDOS attack on FTB, Skepchick, and Feminist Frequency, in a comment on a Facebook post by Ed Brayton.
While I reject ddosing like this, to say that the ppl who disagree with the feminism of ftb, skepchick and ff is bc they want women to be doormats is absolutely ridiculous. I used to respect ppl like pz. I used to self identify as a feminist. I m still an egalitarian. I’m still pro choice, pro gay rights, left leaning, and I still can’t stand macho men and damselish women. But I want no part of this divisive with us or against us uppity atheist plus community.
Ed, while I can see where you’re coming from in your assessment, I don’t know that the people were necessarily motivated by hate for women. My guess is that they’re motivated by contempt/hate for FTB, Skepchick and Anita Sarkeesian, and feminism. I now self-identify as an egalitarian anti-feminist. Up until this past summer I identified as a feminist. My values haven’t changed. I just got to learn more about feminist beliefs and culture within feminist circles. And I’ve seen the stunning groupthink of the A+ forums. I’ve seen the divisiveness on FTB (e.g., Richard Carrier’s big call to arms). I’ve seen one hysterical feminist after the next, and the legions of moderate feminists that excuse the vitriolic conduct of their radical peers (serving as the moderates that lend protection to the radicals, a la religion as described by Sam Harris). I’ve seen the one-sidedness of Anita Sarkeesian, feminists, A plussers, etc. So I can see why these DDOSers would want to take the sites down. I absolutely reject the people who did this for doing it. And I’m not denying that there are MRAs that go too far the other way. But I have to say, I get why those who did the DDOS would do what they did – and it need not have anything to do with hating women. I don’t hate women. I called myself a feminist for years. Was raised by a strong single mother and had a loser father. I’m pro-equality, pro-gay rights, pro-choice. Gender stereotypical people annoy me greatly. I’m definitely left of centre. And I reject feminism and am often disgusted by what I see of femnists and the feminist culture. That someone like me can feel this way, I think, says something.
It’s a great line of argument. “I reject murder, but I get why those people murdered you. You’re annoying. Murder is wrong, but I have to say, I get why those who murdered you did what they did.”
I think I caught part of that on my FB feed. Comments were already far along, though, so I only saw some of the latter part and not those posts that kicked it off.
I will say ‘egalitarian anti-feminist’ looks like a clear example of an oxymoron.
One thing I wonder about. The “one-sidedness of Anita Sarkeesian”? I know I don’t follow her closely or anything. Mostly just seen several of her videos. They hardly come across as radical or even one-sided. Unless he just means she fails to present the views of blatant misogynists with equal validity?
It does say something but not what you apparently think it says.
As far as I can see, what it says is this: he is theoretically pro-equality in the abstract, but is in practice opposed to all specific instances of people pointing out inequality. Seems familiar.
sawells, that makes more sense than anything I could think of. “Of course I want equality, but that isn’t inequality, that’s just institutionally the way things are, and you should never fight the status quo because you might upset me and people like me. Of course, I might upset you and people like you more often and qualitatively more, but you just have to put up with it as the price of supporting the status quo.”
Anita Sarkeesian? One-sided???
She’s making a video series about tropes in video games!!! WHAT IS THE BIG FUCKING DEAL!!!
Goddamn, that drives me crazy every time.
Ah, yes. It’s groupthink to believe equality is a good thing. It’s groupthink to believe privilege is worth pushing back. It’s groupthink to agree on things that are demonstrable.
Other things that are groupthink: science is good. global warming is caused by industrialism, huge wealth disparity is bad, and cheesecake is delicious.
It does not matter how much you disagree with someone in cyber space. What you do not do is violate the freedom of someones else speech just because you do not like what they have to say. And comparing Free Thought Blogs to Atheism Plus is not entirely accurate because the freedom on the former is far greater than on the latter. And I know because I have posted on both. But to be fair to Atheism Plus they have a different modus operandi anyway. But I used to be rather critical of Free Thought Blogs until I came here. And it is not as restricting as some claim it to be. In point of fact it is quite free. Quite free is not completely free of course but one has to remember that these are private blogs and the authors can censor at will should they so choose. There is a prevailing view that they are always right but that is a universal one however amongst any and all close cyber community so one should not just accuse them of it now. It is after all human nature. But one can agree to disagree without having to resort to this type of activity. Hopefully nothing more will come of it but I will not be surprised if something does. But I would hope it does not
Uppity! Hysterical!
Good grief…
Gosh, I don’t hate macho men *or* damselish women. I tend to assume they are doing some combination of following their hearts and reacting to the pressures of the surrounding social environment.
I guess I must just not be a feminist 😉
i’m curious about what examples this person would give. you never know what counts as “hysterical” in thier book, but i’m also very curious about the second part of that sentence. i haven’t been seeing any moderate feminists defend bad behavior…has anyone seen this?
really, who knows what they are talking about. i strongly suspect if they gave the actual examples, it would not be how they say it is…
Hyperbole equals hysteria, naturally. In fact, any poetic license must be taken literally. Charitable reading is a waste of mental energy. Follow-up snark is complete agreement with worst possible reading, ergo defending bad behavior.
Most in-jokes ruin any communication for external audiences who are unwilling to go to the effort to figure out what you really mean.
brianpansky:
Oh! I know, I know! Pick me, pick me!
Uhm. Okay. An example of what counts as “hysterical” in their book? (Don’t read any further if you have a heart condition, are pregnant, on Dilaudid or Camomile, or vomit easily. Seriously, it’s really just that bad. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.)
What counts as “hysterical” in their book? “Guys, don’t do that.”
Yes. Radical feminists have taken to offering polite (but radical!) suggestions of conduct. To men! Next thing you know, they’ll claim no really means no.
Dammit, Avo, you made me snort smoke into my sinuses!
(And Dilaudid is one hell of a drug.)
TL;DR:
“I’m a Nice Liberal Guy who understands in the abstract that women as a class deserve equality with men, and freedom from patriarchal oppression.
Its just that I HATE those individual uppity *individual* (women) who challenge my male privilege and sense of entitlement.
So, *not* a misogynist by a long stretch. “
um, is there an agreed-upon definition of damselish woman? I’m woozy from a plaguey head cold, but all i can come up with is ‘unassertive, feminine, young.”. Why would anyone hate on someone for that? If there’s a jargoney definition for damselish that i’ve missed, of course, please point me right the hell in the right direction!
I think it’s that the pushback against so much damsel in the media – that is, the way the media portrays women is a problem, and that we are speaking out against it – is being interpreted as us saying that anyone who acts feminine in the same way is just as bad as the portrayals. Fighting (asking, pointing out problems) for a broader spectrum in portrayals is thus seen as infringing on individual’s rights to be stereotypes.
Wow. There is literally no way to seriously use the word “uppity” without reinforcing social hierarchies. It literally means not expressing ‘proper’ deference, necessitating that the person using it thinks the person or people in question have a definite proper place (with an attached degree of deference that must be expressed). “Uppity” can, of course, be used satirically to great effect, but that is not its context here. You just disproved all your own claims, dude. If you really support equality, you could not seriously use the word, as it’s expressive of ideas at odds with the concept of equality.
@shari #15: I’d interpret it as “women who uncritically internalize cultural stereotypes about women’s lack of agency and thus refuse to exercise agency in any ways not socially prescribed,” but given this dude’s use of language, I have little confidence that my interpretation is anywhere close to his intent.
At first I thought he wrote ‘damselfish women’. As anybody familiar with those scrappy little algae gardeners knows, they’re not really all that timid.
as an occasionally damn selfish woman, that would be something I can understand a pushback against!! I think the uncritically absorbing stereotypes thing is probably close, but i can barely follow him. Thanks for shedding some light on this because it’s…..not remotely understandable to me.