I will be appearing on Al Jazeera English tomorrow afternoon. (And you can be a part of it too.)
I will be appearing on Al Jazeera English tomorrow talking about misogyny online. The show I’m going to appear on is called TheStream; it’s on at 3:30 PM ET.
You can watch a live stream of the show on the Al Jazeera website here.
If you want to be part of the discussion on the show, you can record a comment for the show’s producers here, or on the main page for TheStream. Some of the questions they’re asking:
Do women face more misogyny online than they do in person? Why? Does it reflect real sentiment or opportunistic, anonymous behavior? Have you experienced harassment as a woman online? What can be done about it?
I’m really looking forward to the show. It should be interesting.
If you have any suggestions about issues I should raise or points you think it’s important to make, let me know in the comments below.
Like this:
Posted on August 6, 2012, in announcements, girl germs, harassment, misogyny, sexual harassment. Bookmark the permalink. 131 Comments.
also from what i understand there’s a push to add men’s syncro?
Yes, it’s long been seen as a “female” sport, but the number of male participants has been steadily increasing, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it added as an official Olympic sport before too long.
“Does it reflect real sentiment or opportunistic, anonymous behavior? ”
Just to comment on this, I think both descriptions often apply. Most misogynists are aware that misogyny is unacceptable in public life and can have negative consequences, so most of them temper their hatred sufficiently to fly under the radar. Online, where there’s much less likelihood of one’s behavior impacting one’s personal life or career, they feel free to be much more honest about just how much they hate women.
Obviously, some people are attacking women online just ‘for the fun of it’, but I think that’s a far less number of people than those that really, truly harbor negative attitudes about women.
Shorter Tommy Boy: I got drunk the night before and couldn’t be arsed to get up and do what I said I would.
Tom, links or it didn’t happen.
I;d love to listen but I’ll be at a federal courthouse supporting the judge who ruled indefinite detention unconstitutional.
Yes, and according to journalist Cathal Kelly’s screed against women’s boxing now being included, London 2012: Some sports — like women’s boxing — don’t belong in the Olympics, men’s synchro is pretty much just a slippery slope away, except that nobody would want to watch it:
“If this is about inclusiveness, the International Olympic Committee will cave to the British male synchro swimming team that is lobbying for a spot in Rio. Since no one will watch guys in nose plugs doing pas de deux, the IOC is not going to cave. Some sports just don’t translate across the sexes, however long we hold our breath and wish for a perfect, genderless world.”
Speaking of Women’s sports, did any other Canadians here find themselves with some dust in their eyes after yesterday’s football? I think there was a duststorm going around
I don’t want to see men’s synchro.
I want to see MIXED-GENDER synchronized swimming. That sounds pretty awesome.
But then I’ve been leaning towards radical ideas like weight-classing the Olympics and doing away with gender segregation.
Also, I’m totally going to have to catch up on the youtube update tomorrow.
Oh, and congrats man!!
“Most misogynists are aware that misogyny is unacceptable in public life and can have negative consequences, so most of them temper their hatred sufficiently to fly under the radar. Online, where there’s much less likelihood of one’s behavior impacting one’s personal life or career, they feel free to be much more honest about just how much they hate women.”
I agree, being anonymous can bring out the worse in many people.
I am sorry this is off topic, but if men are funny to get sex (something that is commonly claimed by men), then why would women who give up “prostitution” (in quotes since prostitution in this context seems to mean being alive) try to be funny? If someone can get paid for sex by a man of the choice, I don’t think it is illogical to conclude that they could get sex with the same person without that person paying. Therefore no funny is needed to obtain sex. Unless, sex is only good for men if they pay? Or the whole theory on why men are funny and women aren’t is complete bunk.
I do think misogyny is much worse online because of the anonymity of it, much like any other type of hostile comments (racism, homophopia, etc), people let loose some primitive rage when there’s no accountability. What I find interesting and it may be something you’re interested in noting, is the bizarre use of terms normally associated with equality and activism being hijacked by hate groups. Feminists are referred to as “Nazis” or “intolerant,” “bigots” by the very people who are bigoted and intolerant, and frankly whose views are so much aligned with those of Nazis. It’s as if they think by taking these terms and adopting them as their own, they can use it as ammo and it will fool the world into thinking they are some sort of human rights group – despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. It is truly bizarre. Almost like that tricky language used to make some feminists look anti sex, just because they are anti-porn due to the rampant misogyny and degradation in porn, thus making Hugh Hefner and Larry Flint look like pioneers for sexual freedom, contrary to what they are actually doing; perpetuating tired, old, sexist and rather conservative views of women and human sexuality in general.
David: YAY! Thanks for the quick reply-I can now offer whole hearted congrats!
(I’d apologize for paranoia for the all dudely experts to talk about the “woman problem” is an endemic issue, has been for a couple of centuries, and I’ve gotten even more cynical).
Sara, I see the same thing in gay marriage debates. I have given it a lot of thought, but I still can’t see how someone is repressed by gay people marrying. However, the language used by anti-gay marriage people, and their arguments always go along these lines. I try to understand where this argument comes from, and I think it depends whether you define an important right as the right to take rights from others. If you do, then it is impossible for everyone to have rights. MRAs arguments make a lot of sense if you start from the premise that men are society and women some other.
We are lucky to have an unprecedented level of free speech. However, I wouldn’t put my name to public comments about how rape is wrong etc. Possibly, given I wouldn’t express my opinion in my name, I shouldn’t express it anonymously. I think anonymity has advantages and disadvantages online. However, without anonymity then I think in the online world, the person most happy to threaten and act on violence will win.
Misogynists are pretty common offline too. University presidents say that women are genetically incapable of doing math, the secretary of state gets asked about fashion…sexism is very common. Online harassment, like street harassment, has it’s own unique expression.
Worth adding is that oppressed groups get online harassment too. There’s a fair amount of homophobic, cissexist, classist, racist, etc. harassment as well. And women who are marginalized in other ways often get especially violent and persistent sexist harassment too (black women bloggers often have horror stories far above the average amount of sexist online harassment, for example).
There was a debate in feminist literature around the internet when it was new, some people theorized that the ‘faceless’ nature would force people to stop treating people differently. But that didn’t happen, what happened is that privileged groups are the default and oppressed group are treated as intruders by them. And privileged groups in privileged group dominated or exclusive spaces are extremely nasty in general. The way, for example, that rich people talk when they don’t know there’s a poor person in the room is very different from they way they publicly talk about class, ditto for white people and race, heteros and queerness, etc.
@Pear Tree,
Exactly! I was faced with this the other day. A friend on facebook made a comment criticizing that Chick Fil A ordeal, and one of her “friends” called gay rights activists, bullies and yes, Nazis! That they “go after” anyone who disagrees with them, and they’re “agenda” is yes, “intolerant.” I commented that it’s strange to call a civil rights group “nazis”, especially since it was the nazis that sent homosexuals to concentration camps.
*their agenda.
It’s so annoying when people who don’t understand words try to appropriate social justice jargon.
I don’t even.
P.S. I demand a copy of the GAY AGENDA.
Also, David, feel free to throw out a line about some lady folks not participating because of safety concerns.
whataboutthemoonz, I think the gay agenda is to have gay people treated as human beings, although I’m no expert.
I think what’s happened with social justice language is that various people have realized that you can use it as a shield against criticism and tool to shut down debates. Obviously in the case of genuine activism (let’s say gay activism here as an example) most of the people who will have criticisms of the movement or who will be against the movement will be out and out homophobes. It’s correct to label them intolerant, a bigot, etc., correct to refocus discussions on gay concerns, correct to push homophobes out of gay spaces, and so forth. However various individuals and political groups glommed on to the fact that if you use SJ language and present yourself as the oppressed group it means you can take control of the conversation. You can label anyone who disagrees with you “intolerant”, you have free reign to push dissenters out of your movement, you can demand extra representation without looking like a whiner, etc. and people who do not think critically will just think “poor x, getting beat up unfairly by everyone” rather than saying “HEY YOU ARE NOT OPPRESSED”. It’s an easy way for people to trigger fairness concerns whether or not they are legitimate to bring up.
The worst part about this is that the privileged people/groups who claim oppression are frequently able to get more time and sympathy than genuinely oppressed groups because they hold power, they appear more likable and relatable to other privileged people, and it’s safe to ally with them. This is why when for example a black expert in race-related studies goes on TV to talk about racism all the whiteys will come out of the woodwork to complain that the expert is whining, that nobody cares, that racism doesn’t even exist anymore, and on and on, but when Mr. Conservaman from the Totally Not White Supremacist Institute comes on to talk about reverse racism and the terrors of affirmative action a good percentage of white people would never even consider labeling him a big whiney whiner that needs to shut up and just deal. The horrible irony is that claiming oppression seems more legitimate to a lot of people when the claimer is not actually oppressed; privileged people who lose the tiniest ounce of privilege somehow deserve more attention than people who have had a boot on their head for the last 300+ years. Oppression claims let the privileged people focus on how “unfair” it is that they are losing ground while concealing the greater playing field and how everyone else is at a disadvantage (’cause why aren’t you focusing on meeeee)
Ami discussed a good analogy about sports somewhere and how w/r/t sexism feminists are asking for a few people to be added to the women’s team (because they are short a few players) and then men complain that it’s “unfair” that they get extra players added OMG OMG OMG. Here is her post on her blog about it.
@Whatabouthemoonz:
YOu asked!
YOu shall receive!
http://gayagenda.com/
I became aware of the MRM when they went after my husband who is the president of a rape crisis center, over a year ago. There was an ad that was featured on the center’s website that was bringing attention to the idea that violence against women is a learned behavior (ya know, that it’s not something men are born to do) and how we can raise our boys to become men who respect women, etc. Well, some MRA saw it and it went viral to all those crazy MRA sites. My husband’s blog blew up with all kinds of attacks, threats, etc. David Futrelle even wrote about the whole crazy thing on Manboobz. What struck me the most was how the MRAs spewed venom on ME, the wife! No one even knew who I was – just that he had a wife. One sicko wrote that he hopes I “die of cunt cancer, because she is a cunt.” I was not involved in any of this, and suddenly I was scared and felt targeted. The MRAs did their usual “let’s build a smear campaign!” and started raising money for the cause of “exposing” my hubby, blah blah. I started feeling paranoid – like maybe we were being stalked by some MRA funded gumshoe. This is how I came to realize that misogyny is a much bigger problem than I thought. It was definitely apparent when the object of their rage got transferred to me, the wife, the woman, when it really should’ve had nothing to do with me. And this all happened online, all of it. The internet is a cesspool of misogyny. This is not to diminish what hubby went through – it was a lot worse for him. But he even marveled “wow. There are a lot people out there that just hate women.”
@sara
wow. that’s intense. thanks for sharing your experience.
My family complains about “those people” and how they’re always “whining” about stuff, but they honestly have no idea why calling a group of black men (an Olympic basketball team) “thugs” is not an okay thing to do. But reverse racism!!!11!!1!
My family = facehoof.
/)_- /)_- /)_- /)_- /)_- /)_- /)_- /)_- /)_-
@Sara - I’m sorry you had to go through all of that. It sounds positively horrifying
Also known as “there are no women on the Internet”. The original Hacker Manifesto was very naive about what it meant to just consider each other human, without regard to race or gender or whathaveyou. What really happens is that ‘human’ subconsciously becomes ‘white hetero cis abled neurotypical etc etc male’ because that’s what people regard as being human in our society. People will play City of Heroes for months with my ex but if she claims she’s a woman, suddenly she’s treated as ‘woman’ rather than ‘human’ (which means ‘man’, remember?). And of course the only reason you would break the spell and id as ‘woman’ is that you want attention, you’re a whore who wants human (men) players to give you stuff, etc etc. There’s no winning position for the oppressed in this catch 22.
At least when you’re IRL, you may only see a few women in whatever field you’re in, but most people don’t automatically erase them as easily from the space and assume they don’t exist.
@Sharculese and whataboutthemoonz
Thanks guys, it was stressful. Mostly just shocking. I was dumbfounded by the rage. I was very naive - even tried “reasoning” with some comments online. Crazy. It blew over though, and rather quickly! - one thing you can count on is the inactivism of their activism.
Internet/gender/gaming sucks. I play MMOs, and I have stories out the wazoo.
@Kladle: I think “hole in one” is the appropriate phrase here. Thanks.
@Sara: Ugh. My sympathies as well for what you and your husband went through.
Yep, in the experiment I conducted, in Central London’s Leicester Square, 62% of women replied with a misandric utterance about men, whilst 29% of men replied misogynistically about women.
I then took the same experiment to LSE’s campus, where zero percent of the elite male student passers by responded misogynistically about women, and 22% of elite female students responded misandrically about men.
So, it looks like a top university education teaches us to speak absolutely positively about women, but does not seem to encourage quite so much positivity about men.
Bare in mind that I, a male camera operator/interviewer, was asking the questions, so I would expect an even higher misandry level from the females when responding to a lone female camera operator/interviewer.
I did another experiment, also asking the Leicester Square passing females to pass comment on men, and asking their attitudes about what percentage of a first date a man should pay, and how many month’s salary a man should spend on an engagement ring, and found gold-diggers were on average 20% more misandric than non gold diggers (which isn’t surprising given gold-diggers’ lower average IQ).
Feminists used the least amount of misandry, with the exception of rare strident victim-feminists who talked of men as ‘the privileged sex’ for instance (an attitude which can and does justify misandry along with a host of other inequitable treatment).
I just got an email back from a professor in the fied of gender and humour who thinks my documentary experiment on whether gold-digging environments make women less funny is something experts do not know the answer to, so I will be focusing my attentions on producing this instead.
Any stand up feminists who are funny and would like to help me produce this, can email me:
sexismbusters@hotmail.com
Tom Martin’s cargo cult science, everyone.
And can we see the film, pretty please? Not that we don’t trust your results or your methods, noooooooooooooo. But since you and us don’t even agree on whether or not ‘misandry’ is a real thing, we’ll need much more details to be convinced.
I suppose this has been said to Tom a bunch of times, but so what? What is the point? What if someone proved it’s more acceptable to call white people “Honkey!” and “Cracker”! What then?
indifferentsky being indifferent. How many manboobzers have a morally ambivalent screen name?
I’m guessing that giving a source for those statistics would help your cause, Tom. Perhaps some sort of a film?
Also, could you please say how will you judge the levels of humor in your subjects?
Morally ambivalent screen name?
Did somebody break Tom?
YOUTUBE OR IT DIDN’T HAPPEN, TOM.
At least give us some quotes here!
LOL, comment number two regarding my screen name. It’s from a poem that I wrote.
The sky is indifferent regardless of any beliefs. Unless your belief is there is a sky god, and some days even he/she might wake up indifferent to something you do.
Also, what? Why mention me if you’re not going to address anything? Just “Your name BLEH!” What kind of nonsense is that? Not very empirical of you.
And I prefer the concept of ethics to morals.
Is Tom doing another one of his super scientific studies? How many manboobzers have morally ambiguous screen names? I don’t think even Elam would fund that one.
I think this is a good screen name for drawing out people that jump to conclusions, think inside the box and aren’t very good at analysis. There is constantly a reeking stench of old world religion coming from a lot of these guys. It’s barely hidden. And no that has nothing to do with every religious person on the planet anywhere. “Some of my best friends are super religious!”, etc.
@Tom Martin:
What were they replying to?
How did you decide which replies were “misandric utterances?”
How did you decide which replies were “misogynistic utterances?”
Did you measure misandric utterances of men and misogynistic utterances of women?
What was the sample size?
How did you choose the participants?
Did you take steps to ensure you had a representative sample?
How did you know what level of education people in Leicester Square had? Did you ask?
How did you know what level of education people on the LSE’s campus had? Did you ask?
How did you account for the effect of holding a camera in front of a person on their answers?
Was it all recorded, so you can be sure you remembered the totals properly?
Did all the participants consent to being part of the experiment?
Did you control for how the experiment was presented to the people?
Did you present the exact same prompt to each person?
How do you go from a correlation between degree of education and misandric/misogynistic utterances to a causation?
Is “speaking positively” defined as “not saying misandric/misogynistic utterances” or is it defined as “saying positive things about the opposite sex?”
Why do you conclude that education doesn’t teach people to speak positively about men? The percentage drops from 62% to 22%, while the percentage of misogynistic ones drop from 29% to 0%. It would seem as though education reduces your sexist remarks overall by quite a bit.
Just some questions I have about your first “experiment.” I won’t overwhelm you with questions about the other one.
I wonder how moral the name “kirbywarp” is…
Sigh.
I can’t assume anyone cares, but I’ll let you know the reason I write my posts poorly is that I start typing something and change how I want to say it mid sentence and forget to go back and make sure the other words are in agreement. I will work on that. Resolution. I just try to cram manboobz into a small slot of time.
kirbywarp is illegal still in some states, so…
Oh my. *O_O*
(totally a blush emote)
I definitely have an immoral username.
Mine is a Spanish/Portuguese verb! Before finding that out, though, it was a random sound meant to avoid “oh ho, somebody already has that username- DENIED.”
Nwoorder and all the wise men around. The book the manipulated men by Esther Vilar is a must read. Google Ester Vilar manipulated men pdf. Basically she says that men failed to understand that women are a real stupid creature( except the few bright one) It is no point arguing with women here because the are part ot the really stupid group. I want to see how to women here will survive when banking system will stop functioning, and the drought will tipple the price of food. Like I said all the intelligent men should read the book mentionned above. My last post here, I feel like a real loser talking to stupid people
Wow. Ok. You “intelligent” men go off and do your own thing. Us stupid men will just stick around here, I guess. Have fun! ^_^
hey loser, that reminds me of the whole Ayn Rand thing where we’re supposed to believe John Gault churned his own butter, so to speak.
Also, you’re not going to fare well under any collapse, either, I wager.
So, yes, don’t bother arguing with us stupid women (and men) here on manboobz about how there is no misogyny. HA! I guess women are just too stupid a group to realize there is no misogyny.
Bye, Loser! We’ll miss the witty repartee and trenchant discourse you provided.
Tommy-Boy:
Since you had no case, yes.
If you had a case, then it wouldn’t be.
Had you won, it wouldn’t be.
I realise you think your grievance was meritorious, but you are wrong.
On the one hand, “tulgey” doesn’t have an established meaning in the english language. On the other hand, “Tulgey Logger” means I am a logger of the tulgey wood.
So, depending on your system of ethics, my screen name is both environmentally and ethically ambiguous.
“misandrically”
These fake words keep piling up.
I love this typo. Beware, women - the drought will…have a drink with? consume as a beverage?…the price of food. This is totally going to happen - beware.
Gee, I wonder which group SHE claims membership to
I can imagine. Unfortunately, the choice to surround yourself with MRAs was yours.
As I have pointed out before, my screename has only the most moral and pure origins-obscure anime reference.
indifferentsky: Sigh.
I can’t assume anyone cares, but I’ll let you know the reason I write my posts poorly is that I start typing something and change how I want to say it mid sentence and forget to go back and make sure the other words are in agreement. I will work on that. Resolution. I just try to cram manboobz into a small slot of time.
I have the same problem. Usually it’s not too big a problem. I’ve not noticed you writing poorly constructed posts.
My screen name wasn’t supposed to be ambiguous, but I suppose it ended up that way. I misremembered a latin noun, and so (because of a difference of one letter) the idea was lost, a bit. Then again, the way in which I was using it was linked to a secondary line of text; and was layered with people knowing things about me, so…
Now it’s just money, which can be morally ambiguous.
My screen name isn’t morally ambivalent.
It’s a representation of the last voice of sanity losing ground against the chaos. Of pure melodic rocks being ground away by the waters of time.
…it’s a movie reference, basically. What’s Up Doc?
Video is up,