Image Based Harassment and Visual Misogyny

[boston bean]

I’m making it a point to strategically share some of the online harassment I’ve received after launching my Tropes vs Women in Video Games Kickstarter. I’ve already posted about the harassment via YouTube and Wikipedia but these were not the only abusive cyber mob tactics employed to try and silence me.

After struggling with whether or not to make the extent of the attacks public I’ve decided that it’s ultimately important to shed light on this type of abuse because online harassment and bullying are at epidemic levels across the internet.

In addition to the aggressive actions against me that I’ve already shared, the harassers launched DDoS attacks on my site, attempted to hack into my email and other social media accounts and reported my Twitter and YouTube accounts as “terrorism”, “hate speech” or “spam”. They also attempted to “dox” and distribute my personal contact info including address and phone number on various websites and forums (including hate sites).

In this post I will detail some of the image based online harassment and visual misogyny I have been subjected to over the past few weeks. Image based harassment is another common weapon used against women and members of marginalized groups online – often in conjunction with other forms of harassment. It’s certainly not unique to my situation. Recently Bioware writer Jennifer Hepler, Shakesville’s blogger Melissa McEwan and British columnist Laurie Penny have all been targeted by similar image based harassment campaigns.

http://www.feministfrequency.com/2012/07/image-based-harassment-and-visual-misogyny/

[JustAnotherGen]

1. I quadruple

triple, double dog dare anyone to come in here and make any statement justifying the behavior this woman is being subjected to.

[boston bean]

2. It appears that this is not just an issue that concerns one particular website

but that a particular website is a microcosm of the liberal/progressive blogosphere.

Until that fact is recognized, it's seems as though misogyny and sexism within our ranks will continue.

I think the blogger is missing this point, she fails to direct her criticisms at the correct group of people. She leaves it too broad. Many of the people who are doing this are not just right wing sexist creeps, they are the liberal gaming community. In essence, she focuses on gaming, but not their politics.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. How about if we come in here, rec the op, visit the link, and donate?

[boston bean]

8. That would be very welcome! Thank you!

[mzteris]

22. The Kickstarter project

well surpassed their goal - $158,922, instead of the $6000 they were asking for. The fundraiser on Kickstarter ended June 6.

Unless you were talking about donating elsewere? If so, please share.

[caseymoz]

16. They can't.

An absolutely detestable thing to do. They pretty much confirm that video games with sexualized female stereotypes don't demand maturity or anger management, or even socialization.

[sufrommich]

3. But I was told misogyny only exists

in the fevered brains of the "radfems".

[boston bean]

4. Which in itself is sexist/misogynist stereotype of women who speak their minds.

Never mind that it is right wing framing.

[sufrommich]

5. Also note that "radfem" is the new "feminazi". Used as a descriptor that

means the same as feminazi but won't directly tie the user to the Rush Limbaughs out there ( and won't raise eyebrows on liberal forums).

[caseymoz]

12. No.

"Radical feminist" does not mean "feminazi." Unless you mean to say conservatives are right in declaring progressives socialists and socialists Nazis. "Radical feminist" when I grew up, was a term some women gave themselves. They were proud of it.

Maybe you feel just as insulted now because it's usually said by males in a contemptuous voice, but there is a faction of feminism that's always going to piss most males off. Why? Because they're not about equality of pay or treatment, but they attack male heterosexuality at its core. Don't even try to say this faction doesn't exist.

It's always going to have a bad name among the majority of males, and perhaps even the majority, period. The purpose, however, is not to say the same thing as "feminazi" without being associated with Limbaugh. The purpose is to refer to refer to a real faction in feminism. If you become offended at the term, there will still come another to refer to the radical, anti-male faction, and it will be uttered in the same sneering tone that will make it just as offensive to your ears.

It becomes an insult when it's used to refer to all feminists, or, worse, all females.

To me, though, I'm just catching up with an idea that it's an insult to all feminists. Maybe "radicalized misanthropes" make you feel better? Shorten it to RM?

[boston bean]

14. I think maybe you and sufrommich are saying the same thing... No?

[prairierose]

15. caseymoz, you have to remember that there have always been those who accuse any woman....

who speaks her mind of being a radfem. Most people do not understand what the radfems believe; they just know the name. For many men, radfem is any feminist because in their minds, any feminist is a radical. So, to some extent, radfem and feminazi have the same meaning. They are both used as pejoratives.

[caseymoz]

18. I remember.

However, an insult need not have any meaning. If you call somebody an "asshole" what do you mean? Besides the fact that he's odious. It's purely metaphorical, and usually detached from anything that even gives the meaning "odious."

Purpose of an insult is to cause discomfort. Raise somebody's stress hormones, which will then go to work wrecking the person's body. It's the set the person against themselves and set other people against them. A usage is not a definition, though.

A word becomes an insult when it's spoken with derision enough. So, that's what's happening with radfem, where it's a term that predates Limbaugh. However, if the purpose in the term is to make any "feminist" a radical, why do they even make the distinction between feminist and radical feminist? Why isn't "feminist" itself been spoken of so derisively so much that it's becoming an insult? You would think that if the entire usage is to make every feminist look radical, that would be what they would do.

No, there's a reason to make sure people know you mean a particular faction of feminism and not all feminists or all women. Whether it's to distance yourself from Rush Limbaugh, whether it's to emphasize "every feminist is a radical" or to actually make sure people know you don't mean all feminists or even most of them. Unfortunately, the word does not carry its purpose, and unfortunately, people have different ideas of what a radical feminist is as opposed to a feminist. If you're modern conservative, all feminists are going to be radical, so radfem would be the term you'd chose, because you'd be attracted to its already negative connotation.

However, I'll tell you, if you didn't have an acceptable term for the particularly anti-male faction of feminism, one would have to be invented immediately to refer to it. Otherwise, you make it impossible to distinguish that from other feminism. The next term coming might sound far worse than "radfem" sounds now.

[boston bean]

19. The problem with that casey

is that the term is used derisively, to diminish long held feminist beliefs. Like say, if a feminist mentions the patriarchy... immediately, they are labeled a radfem. Well, radfems in the day did focus on the cultural aspect of the oppression, so in one way it is true, but the way it is being used in today, is in a dismissive fashion to curtail or nip conversation. And because feminists have in the past called themselves radical feminists, it is a cute way for some to broad brush an entire community, with a negative connotation of the bra burners or persons who subscribe to overcoming womens oppression culturallly, with in progressive community. Much the same way feminazi is used by the right.

Now to add even a further bit of confusion, there is a huge split between the separatist feminists and the transgender community surrounding womyn born womyn gatherings and the such, and what constitutes a woman. Is gender innate or is it a social construct.... And those feminists also call themselves radfems, and the transgender community calls them that as well.

So, the history of the word is changing, but still many mainstream feminists identify with radical feminist ideas and thought of the 2nd wave, like the patriarchy, and in no way identify with excluding transgendered person within the movement.

[caseymoz]

23. Patriarchal theory

I need to point out that patriarchal theory is the disagreement with most men. I myself see it as having no credibility. I feel like when discussing it with any feminist that its being forced down my throat. Accept it, or goodbye. In your words, they act in a dismissive fashion, and curtail or nip the conversation. I consider the fact that it can't be questioned to be a mark of radicalism. Same with other terms used in feminism that are questionable.

I call myself pro-feminist. I want women to have equal pay, to be treated equally, and to be free of coercion and fear, and have the complete right to choose if they'll have sex, if they'll reproduce, when, and with who.

However, when feminists begin to respond to theory rather than reality, that's where I call them radical. It's especially a sociological theory that's as faulty as patriarchy. The "soft" sciences do not have a good reputation for science.

I know how men tend to cooperate against women in the way they have against Sarkeesian. Though I'll add, there's not much organization needed to harass her in this way. All you need is Photoshop and a lot of pissed off guys to pick up templates. That's not organized. However, I've heard about and experienced men get into a froth team up more tightly a woman.

Even so, this is not what could be called a patriarchy, and you don't need a patriarchy to explain it.

As you can tell, even if I call myself pro-feminists, they don't invite me to any parties. Nevertheless, if that's what I call myself (acknowledging the term "feminist" is reserved for one of the female gender) then how do I speak separately of the factions within it with which I disagree? It seems to me, by always taking radfem as an insult, it blocks communication with males who respect feminism too much to use the term "feminist" itself as an insult.

As I said, if the term didn't exist, necessity declares that one be invented. Whether it stays accepted depends on what tone uttered in and/or whether the opinions expressed along with it are tolerated.

[boston bean]

24. Do you believe that males have certain "privileges" bestowed upon them by society

just for being male?

Do you believe that white people have certain privileges bestowed upon them by society just for being white?

[caseymoz]

25. Clarify please.

Are you talking about as a matter of ideals to strive for? In the same sense that Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights"? for example?

Or are you talking about what's in practice?

Also, by have, do you mean something like "hold as self-evident"?

[boston bean]

27. I am asking for your opinion.

I assume that you agree there is a privilege as you state "ideals to strive for".

So, how do you unlink that from "what's in practice"?

[caseymoz]

30. And you presume dead wrong.

Looks like my request didn't help avoid confusion.

Don't twist my words. I meant are you asking me if privilege is a goal of mine. If that's your meaning, it's an insult, but you could very well be talking about that, and at least I'd know what to answer. If quoting the Declaration added to confusion, I'll clarify that: I wasn't juxtaposing the two as similarly laudable, I was referring only to the verb usage. A distinctly different meaning for "are."

Please don't guess. I honestly don't know what you're asking and need clarification. Please take my request literally and choose what you mean. Threads on the subject tend to switch terms on ambiguous questions, leading to all kinds of confusion and ill feelings. Of course, asking for clarification appears to be met with suspicion.

Of course, if you can't or won't distinguish between ideal and practice, or abstract goal and reality, I don't know if asking you to clarify could help.

[redqueen]

28. "... they attack male heterosexuality at its core."

Examples?

It seems odd to me that anyone would insist we need special terms to refer to these alleged "radicalized misanthropes"... I mean have they been actually threatening men with their actions, as the MRA's have done now to the point that they're on the SPLC's radar as hate groups?

Please provide examples so we can discuss them.

[boston bean]

29. good catch. I missed that little nugget.... nt

[caseymoz]

31. To bring up the example would cause quite an argument

. . . I assure you. Actually, a shouting match. You're going to find it difficult not to become outraged by the subject.

And one reason why this is not discussed is that males do a poor job of defending it or even thinking rationally about it, and are usually confronted with total inflexibility and intolerance. So, usually they resort to passive-aggressive bullshit. And-- I'll probably give it away by saying it's close to the very topic of this thread.

So, you want to find the antecedent to that pronoun? Do you still want to go there?

[boston bean]

32. Yes!

I would love to hear it.

[caseymoz]

33. Great!

But I did ask Redqueen.

If she doesn't want to, we could PM it.

[redqueen]

34. Please, do go on.

I might not be back for a while to address it but I would appreciate seeing some examples so that we can get some idea of what you're talking about with respect to feminists who attack male heterosexuality.

[caseymoz]

35. One more thing:

It's in the eye of the beholder, but I warn you, Redqueen, you might consider the examples I give to be graphic, about as graphic as the pictures sent to this woman were, without being pictures and without being personal. I'll keep them as clinical as I can, but if they go over your boundaries and begin to nauseate you, please defer from outrage and tell me you don't want to talk any further.

Of course, that might make my point.

And I promise will be my last warning. No more delay after this.

[seabeyond]

36. wtf are you talking about. you were talking about what "radical fem" do to cut heterosexual males

to the core. and now you are talking about putting up extemely offensive graphic shit par to what this woman experienced.

what is your game?

what are you talking about graphic that would "nauseate you" when referring to radfems cutting hetero male to the core.

and this is really how you have to reduce your conversation?

[caseymoz]

40. I seem to have teased your outrage.

Read the example, and save the pseudo-moralisms for when there's actually something to be offended about.

My game: I just don't want the hassle if somebody gets an image in their head they'd rather not have. Or thinks the point I'm making is too outrageous. I don't want my motives questioned. I'm not having fun with this.

That's my game. Except I don't call it that.

I could understand suspicion, but if the very act of warning you makes you this testy, you should probably skip the rest of the conversation.

[seabeyond]

41. you build it up in absurdity to peak the outrage. and called on it.....

back pedal to this.

you choose your words. then bothered when people quote you.

a question. i asked a question.

[caseymoz]

44. No, that isn't my game.

This is a discussion almost every man would dread to have with woman. That is, details about the psychological process of the male sex drive. I need to deconstruct this to tell her how some factions of feminism can attack the male sexuality "to the core." Women, understandably, take the attitude that male sexuality is not their problem and they don't want to know about it. Now she's demanded that I demonstrate my point, so I have to go into it, that attitude notwithstanding.

Or, I could do what almost any male would do in this case and let just let it rest.

I'm bothered because she quoted me? I think doing this is going to be a terrific hassle and unproductive at the end. However, the one good thing about pessimism is the possibility of being surprised.

You asked a few, rhetorical, questions. You asked what my game was, and you asked if this was how I had to "reduce" my conversation. One I answered, the other only applies if I was going to "reduce" my conversation. By "reduce," I take it you meant "debase."

[redqueen]

46. Who "demanded" anything from you?

I asked that you substantiate your claim. That is all.

[caseymoz]

49. Which is a demand . . .

. . . if I honestly want to substantiate my claim. It's just a request if you presume I likely can't or won't. Call it a conditional demand or a presumptuous request. I don't care.

[redqueen]

50. Framing.

You're doing it right.

However, it sells much better in meta.

[redqueen]

37. Just put up a link please.

Or mention the feminists' names.

We can take it from there.

[caseymoz]

38. Example:

What is the feminist judgment on this:

A man sees a woman on the streets. Never meets her. That night he fantasizes about having consensual intercourse with her. It's an elaborate fantasy where he includes dialog. He masturbates to it. He never meets her again. She never knows about it.

Is what he did ethical the way feminists see it? Is that exploitative? If so, how?

Oh, you wanted a link? I'm telling you the inner life of males. Almost every heterosexual guy, and with some modification, homosexual guy has done this. Many do it with regularly. I would call it the norm.

[seabeyond]

39. .

A woman sees a man on the streets. Never meets him. That night she fantasizes about having consensual intercourse with him. It's an elaborate fantasy where she includes dialog. She masturbates to it. She never meets him again. He never knows about it.

Is what she did ethical the way feminists see it? Is that exploitative? If so, how?

Oh, you wanted a link? I'm telling you the inner life of females. Almost every heterosexual gal, and with some modification, homosexual gal has done this. Many do it with regularly. I would call it the norm.

[caseymoz]

42. You mean females objectify men, too?

Isn't "objectify" what it's called? (I'd pick a different term myself.) How about exploitation?

In case you want to know, yes, I know many women do the exact same thing. I didn't think anyone would be so quick to admit it, except in mockery. That is you're sprouting bullshit because you feel I don't deserve the truth, and wish to undercut my point in any quick way you can, whether true or not.

However, assuming this is the way you actually see it, one wouldn't think so to listen to some feminists about it. I'm thinking that you're paying selective attention then. If you're presuming that females commonly do this to, and purportedly all feminists are okay with it, what about objectification? What about exploitation? Do feminists feel the same way about females indulging in it?

Another example, suppose the guy draws pictures of her and his fantasies and then shows them to friends? If it wasn't before, does this become objectification and exploitation?

[seabeyond]

43. you sure do a lot of assuming and speaking for others as you insist

that all not do it to you.

and no... it is not the same and not what the issue is.

[caseymoz]

45. Just as I thought, mockery.

Whether I assume anything or not is irrelevant except as an ad hominum. It's still the way I see it. Give a counter-assumption, but don't play the game of "My generalities are better than yours, and you'll never know what they are."

Are you going to explain how it's not the same. What puts the male fantasy about females in a totally different category that isn't exploitation and isn't objectification? Or is that what you even mean. I can't tell.

Or are you going to do what I didn't do? That is, shake my head, say these women can never understand, and leave?

Not the same as what issue is? The OP's issue? The issue of exploitation, objectification. Some issue in your head you'd rather be talking about. You're really contributing nothing by mumbling in broken syntax and leaving.

[seabeyond]

56. i am just gonna address your title. mockery. there is no mockery. but i will reiterate

you do not want others to assign motive and intent. you say ask. i asked. yet, twice you have tried to define me, assign motive and intent. you are wrong.

right now, i am busy and do not have time to address your post.

please.... ask. do not assume you can find nerfarious in my post. it is as simple as what i say. no more.

[caseymoz]

73. I'm trying to find what you're talking about.

In previous posts, difficult, because the threading has broken down so badly.

Defining you? Twice? I don't understand what you're talking about. Nor do I understand why you can't answer and correct the "definition" I have wrong. (Literally speaking, I don't know how it's possible to "define" anyone. You define words. You describe people.) That I tried to assign motive and intent? Do you mean a straw man? Do you mean I answered the wrong question?

I'll point out, you couldn't have meant the question, "What is your game?" literally unless you saw me shuffling cards. If I answer that question literally now, it would look like sarcasm.

So, please clarify. I don't know what the offense is; I don't know what's blocking communication.

[redqueen]

47. Your imaginary scenarios are not what was requested.

You stated that some feminists attack male heterosexuality as its core.

That's what I requested politely, evidence for that specific claim, not a new line of conversation discussing our opinions about hypothetical masturbatory practices.

[caseymoz]

52. Shocked! Shocked that you said that.

Not really, it would have been stunning to me if you said anything else.

How can you evaluate whatever link I give you if you don't know what I'm talking about? If you don't know what to look for?

It would be misleading if I referred you first to Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, because it's not their work concerning porn I'm trying to underscore, though it does intersect my thesis. Hetero guys who don't look at porn still have a problem with them, and their influence in feminism is huge.

I'm talking about common feminist works and if you haven't noticed what I'm talking about yet, nothing will stand out to you if I give links. I'm not talking about anything you haven't read or heard yet. I'm talking about looking at it from the standpoint of a hetero-male.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but it also demonstrates my point if you won't have dialog on it. You don't care how hetero males might hear it, whose core mental process likely include what most feminists call "objectification" and "exploitation." Those terms, to boot, are either defective or caricature the real thing.

That's what I mean by attacking male sexuality at it's core. This includes males who might otherwise be politically friendly to feminism.

[MadrasT]

53. So feminists' problem is that they just need to coddle fragile male egos regarding male sexuality?

That is fucking priceless.

After women stop *actually* being sexually attacked, raped, objectified, and abused, come back and talk to us about men's fragile core sexuality.

[caseymoz]

57. If I did any of that . . .

Last edited Tue Jul 10, 2012, 12:54 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . I could see why you would snarl about it. However, you're not talking to rapist or an abuser. You're not talking about anybody who ever befriended or supported one. Every male does not deserve the level of hostility you somehow believe is necessary because of the actions of unrelated males. Hostility that isn't even needed to fight them.

And I'm not talking about tolerating things that would support rapists or abusers. I'm talking about normal males. And if you argue that there aren't any, or they ought to just suck it up, well, like it or not, you made my point.

Look, you don't hurt my feelings with it. But feminists at most, are about forty percent of fifty percent of the population. A minority. Even if you get sixty percent of the females behind one feminist issue, that's still only thirty percent at most. If you think you you can win anything politically with that, you're cracked. Women won the vote with male allies. All male state legislatures ratified suffrage. The first state that allowed women vote, Wyoming, had two women for every five men. They enacted it because they wanted to attract women to the state.

Just informing you. Your goals are going to be stymied without at least some male support. You have the ideology. I'm telling you the mathematics. When was the last major, feminist victory? What's happening with reproductive rights now? As satisfying as it is to tell men to go stick it, that women are being raped by somebody else, so you have the right to be offend any guy, remember it's your engines you're blowing out.

Lastly, did you read any of my warnings? You would have known you'd be just this offended. To have read on to just give this reaction, is not very bright. Maybe you should participate in conversations where you contribute something.

[Alenne]

58. WTF?

This post is garbage.

[caseymoz]

68. My post? Threading has broken down so. . .

I presume so.

. . . may your dismissal of my points be clean so they do not haunt you for years.

[MadrasT]

60. I am not offended.

I dismissed what you wrote as irrelevant and used a bit of strong language in the process.

Carry on.

[caseymoz]

62. Dismissal as expression of anger.

. . . shown by vitriol and ad hominem.

If it were just irrelevance, the appropriate response would be to ignore it or type three words and go away. But you had to attempt to make me feel some of the outrage you felt at what I wrote.

And it wasn't relevant to the OP, but Redqueen decided to press me on an issue and made a request that I support my position. She had in mind links rather than exposition. I did warn her she wouldn't be happy if I did. I could have told her then that any link or attempt to elaborate would not be relevant to the subject, but I decided to extend to her and her feminist supporters (note: I'm not talking about even most feminists) the courtesy of deciding that.

And you have, but tell me, who asked?

[MadrasT]

65. You are assigning a motive and intent to my words that does not exist.

A woman can express a strong opinion without it correlating to "outrage".

Once again, you fail.

Have a great day.

[caseymoz]

69. Well, it wasn't good wishes you expressed.

Thank you. I think before you left, you made a few of my points for me. Which is why I'm going to miss you.

[MadrasT]

70. Have a great day.

[caseymoz]

72. You didn't mean it the first time?

Never mind. You have a good day, too.

[seabeyond]

61. warnings? not very bright? really? nt

[caseymoz]

71. Yes, warning that dismissing males . . .

. . . is not politically astute. That is to say, not very bright. That feminists run the risk of simply isolating their movement into a powerless minority by doing it. And have. I ask you, what was the last, great, feminist accomplishment in this country? Has there even been one in your lifetime? The ERA died, and Title 9 is being challenged. ERA: it was ratified in 34 states. If feminists had had just a little more support, from males or females, it would have been passed. But that was also about where feminists decided that they didn't need males to get what they want.

I'll reiterate, women did not win the vote without male help. They couldn't have. The legislatures were all male, and those males ratified the amendment. It's not like women forced them through armed revolution. Whatever the male motive was and how ever they were persuaded, they came around to it.

And I'm not even talking about a matter compromising ones principles, here.

[redqueen]

54. Really?

So now you've changed the focus from "attacking male heterosexuality" to "looking at it from the standpoint of a hetero-male".

And we still have not the slightest clue what "it" is, other than it's not what Dworkin and MacKinnon have said (and thank the sweet baby Jesus for that)... and it has something to do with masturbatory fantasies.

Would you care to try again? I've heard very little said about using women seen in public as wank fodder. Absent obnoxious staring I don't see the problem. Drawing pictures of women and sharing them... not sure how that fits with "the core of male heterosexuality" or however you put it.

[caseymoz]

67. It:

Sex drive. Male sex drive.

Okay, you don't see a problem with fantasies that don't interfere with anybody else's life. Is that how all feminists would see it? Isn't that sexualizing someone? If it's not exactly objectifying or exploiting? So, there is acceptable sexualization?

Drawing pictures means that there is some outward manifestation of it. Sharing them would mean it's communicated, in other words, it's "socialized." So, I'm trying to find out where it actually becomes offensive, where does it go from acceptable to exploitative and objectification?

Because it's one thing to oppose porn or masturbation fantasies such as the ones in the vid games, but if along the way, it sounds like feminists (Dworkin, MacKinnon, et. al.) collaterally attacking the very act of fantasy itself, which most men (and women) regard as normal, then men begin to worry. For one thing, there's not goddamn thing they could do about it, and they learn that by the time they're fifteen. It doesn't actually allay the concern when it's admitted that women fantasize, because if men hear it that feminists are identifying fantasy itself as the problem, it sounds like feminists are then making male fantasy the culprit and female fantasy the exception.

However, if it takes place inwardly, there's likely going to be some general expression and maybe communication. And porn might be one, but I'm not talking about it specifically.

[redqueen]

59. Can you at least explain how "exploitation" and "objectification" are "core mental process(es)"...

of hetero males?

I mean seriously... wtf?

"Those terms, to boot, are either defective or caricature the real thing."

I think what this shows is you don't understand what those terms mean.

[caseymoz]

64. I don't think I have.

I think the meaning I see is consistent with how I've heard them used. But I admit, I haven't thought to actually look them up.

Different understanding of terms may be the problem. Not just with me. Males, in general, could hear something completely different from what the terms actually express. So, please provide a link and/or define them as you understand them.

[MadrasT]

51. Women do that too.

And who cares about anyone else's inner fantasy life (if they aren't sharing it with other people without consent)?

[A-Schwarzenegger]

76. There's a character I think it was Will Farrell played on SNL.

I can't remember the name of it but I think of him as
"The Fighting Slide-Down Guy." He picks a fight with
somebody or takes offence from something somebody
says or that he imagines they said and then he charges
over and attacks them but his fists kind of weakly bounce off
the other person as he slowly slides down the other person until
he's prone still beating his fists on the ground & the other person
is standing there uninjured and wondering what the heck is
up with the fellow on the ground. This subthread, for some
reason, reminds me of that.

[MadrasT]

77. LOL. This thread...

...needs more cowbell.

[caseymoz]

81. Whatever. nt

[caseymoz]

78. You were expecting something bloody?

I didn't come into this with the idea I was fighting anybody. I thought others would get hostile, (and a few have) so I warned they might not like what I was going to say, but it's hard to give a warning like that without giving a wrong impression. And a few have become hostile.

I got into this because RQ asked me to support a throwaway line I wrote. And actually, she's been reasonable so far and seems to truly want to know what I'm saying.

It's the Rush Limbaugh school of trolling that says an Internet conversation is like a boxing match. Sometimes my temper can get in the way, but I hope I've outgrown that.

BTW, SNL really sucks.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

82. I had no expectations

& they were more than met. Peace, casey.

[caseymoz]

86. Okay. Self-deleting. At least . . .

. . . I determined that somebody was still paying attention, thank you. Note I waited 16 hours to respond.



To tell the truth, I didn't even know what forum it was in.

[seabeyond]

87. thanks. i will do the same. nt

[boston bean]

79. It's ok, sometimes it's fun!

[A-Schwarzenegger]

80. The Mouse That Roared.

This subthread was kind of like a Peter Sellers bit.

[caseymoz]

83. Sorry, I forgot all about your question.

You didn't clarify and didn't repeat them. So, it looks like I just have to wing it.

As practiced, males have been privileged throughout recorded history. And no, that's not how it should have been, or should be. Mostly, law and precedent have kept it that way. It has changed recently. I think there's far more gender discrimination in the wealthy class (1%) than there is in the middle and lower class. I mean, look at who runs for office from that class. Look at who inhabits boardrooms.

Now applying your first question (are you privileged?) to myself, I assure you, it's hard to look at my life at this point and see any privilege. However, if I would have been born a female and had dark skin, I might well be dead or homeless now.

So, in other words, I presume gender privilege is there, but more subtle in my class.

I think I answered your second question there, too. I'll add, conservative will deny that there's discrimination, they'll try to say we're "beyond" that, but every statistic comparing Euros to Afros (Americans, not currency) says that they are wrong. And what comparative experiments have been done show that racial discrimination and privilege are still rife, but probably worse among the wealthy than in the working classes. That's been changing, I mean we have a Black POTUS now. But given the racially charged backlash against him, I'd say it's not anywhere near equal yet, and I hate to think it will never be.

BTW, if you think this is so entertaining, you were too paranoid to clarify your question. Or you couldn't understand it. By either reason, reason it's far more amusing.

[Orrex]

7. Can we recuperate the term "radfem?" I kind of like the sound of it, to be honest

As in insult, it's limp and pointless (much like the aforementioned Limbaugh), but as a repurposed meme I could see it working quite nicely.

[redqueen]

48. I am for damn sure reclaiming it.

The religious, conservative, and liberal people who are trying to use it as a pejorative can go pound sand.

[Orrex]

55. +1

[caseymoz]

10. I never heard that.

Or maybe if I did, I didn't listen. I'll add, though, in the passive voice, "we're told" can mean any idiot said it on the worst day in his worst mood, and anybody hears it, exaggerates a little, and repeats it.

Misogyny definitely exists, is definitely practiced and is definitely harmful. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.

[WinstonSmith4740]

9. So very sad...

Is there anything more pathetic than an man who is not secure with his masculinity? These jerks only feel like men when they're putting other people (more specifically women, gays, disabled) down. I would feel sorry for them, but they're not worth it.

[arely staircase]

11. ah those rugged, manly men

in the gaming community.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. That is why I use a gender-neutral pseudonym when I post elsewhere

I was never targeted with anything quite that awful, but I did receive gender-based harassment for expressing left-wing opinions in the early days of the Internet.

Now, with my gender-neutral pseudonym, the knuckle-draggers use anti-gay slurs instead of anti-women slurs.

[boston bean]

17. That's interesting.

Considering that anti-gay slurs are rooted in misogyny.... So, I guess what you are saying, is that if they think you are a guy, they'll take one route to use misogynistic attacks.... if you are identified as a female use female based slurs....

Does this happen to you on progressive/liberal sites?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. I don't actually post on that many left-leaning sites

I don't even have time to read them all. I mostly post on "mixed" sites, where i feel that it's important to provide a counterweight to the steady barrage of right-wing rants.

[boston bean]

21. Bless you!

I don't think I could do it! I actually avoid them, and wouldn't waste my time posting or responding. But someone's got to do it!

I'm grateful for people like you!

[Scootaloo]

26. Chipped in my $50 before this campaign against her began

But then, I love Anita's videos anyway. Well. Some of 'em could have been more in-depth, but I guess that's the point of donations.

All I can do is shake my head in bemusement at the people doing this. Yes guys, great job in proving her wrong

[sufrommich]

63. Wow, 62 replies and I can only see 18 of them.

Looks like we have company. Am I missing anything good?

[seabeyond]

66. nah... lol. a lot of condescending attitude of

shut up woman and listen to what i say, though, i am not even sure what words like objectification mean.

[redqueen]

74. Patriarchy? Male privilege?

That's it! I'm voting republican!

[MadrasT]

75. Our whole problem as feminists is...

...we're not nice enough to men and we damage their self esteem by attacking their sexuality.

Or some sort of alternate-universe assertion like that...