Sending a woman rape threats to prove that sexual harassment doesn’t exist proves feminism’s point, not yours.
Two women who have been the subject of floods of contemptuous and dismissive abuse as part of their public life write about their experiences and point out that their experience is the cultural norm, not any outlier experience.
The world needs a social justice version of John Baez’ classic simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics AKA The Crackpot Index, to rate our never-ending “feedback” from troglodytes of assorted stripes who are convinced that not only are we Doin It Rong but that we deserve to be threatened into silence for daring to have an opinion in the first place.
A short while ago Anita Sarkeesian published another video to her Feminist Frequency YouTube channel. Within an hour it was taken down by YouTube because it had been flagged as containing objectionable content. Feminist Frequency appealed the takedown, and it was quickly restored. Good on YouTube for restoring the video so quickly, but why doesn’t YouTube have a better mechanism for immunising known target accounts against vexatious complaints?
A nugget of awesome from SKM on the Shakesville post Adria Richards Does Belong at Tech Conferences.
I think that the entire conversation is wrong. I don’t want anybody to be telling women anything. I don’t want men to be telling me what to wear and how to act, not to drink. And I don’t, honestly, want you to tell me that I needed a gun in order to prevent my rape. In my case, don’tt tell me if I’d only had a gun, I wouldn’t have been raped. Don’t put it on me to prevent the rape.
Content note: discussion of rape, violence and threatening behaviour.
I started #tellafeministthankyou b/c of feminists harassed on Twitter. Now ppl are using the tag to harass feminists. Prove the point more! — Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) February 12, 2013 Share this post? Related posts: Today in Anita’s Irony and Lewis’ Law: my threats will show you that harassment is a myth The attempts to shut women down continue Today in… Read more →
Regular readers already know how much we’ve written here over the years on cyberbullies and their enraged cries about their Free Speech rights being breached whenever somebody declines to publish their bile – bile which absolutely nobody is preventing them from publishing on a blog of their own.
Disingenuous doesn’t begin to cover the hypocrisy of the Women Need To STFU brigade.
There are competing ethical imperatives, and there’s a balance to be found. It is basic courtesy to respect a pseudonym or some in-confidence knowledge about a person generally, but should that expected courtesy take precedence over the protection of other people from harm which could be avoided if they knew what you know?
Please follow the links and leave some feedback/suggestions/recommendations.
I’d appreciate some feedback and especially additional tips and tricks that I have overlooked in my latest #FF101 post | Cyberbullies 101: Part 1 – muffling their megaphones
How unsurprising. As usual for media circus threads, please share your bouquets and brickbats for particular items in the mass media, or highlight cogent analysis elsewhere, on any current sociopolitical issue.
Sometimes they work out exactly as the malicious arseholes want them to, grinding people down until they feel the need to stop speaking out. But the technology that gives the bullies a megaphone to amplify their intimidation is a two-edged sword.
In a truly rational world, it might be possible to substantively and productively explore the pros and cons of competing positions in good faith and reach a nuanced understanding and a mutually satisfying path forward. Unfortunately the “don’t give disproportionate emphasis to sexism” side has basically been hijacked by a bunch of bad faith contrarians…