Don’t read today’s Heckler

Because I’m pretty sure I’ve already won our game of bingo.

[TW for abject misogyny.]

Categories: gender & feminism, media


13 replies

  1. If I had gone to a similar degree of trouble to make myself stand out from the crowd, I would have been severely disconcerted had I not been noticed.

    He appears to be describing a woman wearing fairly standard female business dress and fairly standard female business grooming (the extent of which expectations is an argument for another time), so how exactly is she supposed to be taking particular trouble to stand out from the crowd of other women in business?
    What a condescending arsehat, who can’t forebear from singling out a woman standing out from the boardroom crowd simply by being a woman, and who’s almost certainly stacked the anecdote in retellings down the pub in order to make her appear more unreasonable, because we all know that’s how women are, amirite?

  2. Great Satan and all his little wizards, that’s horrific. Oh, but he’s just “noting the package appreciatively”, that’s not obviously obnoxious and demeaning at all. And he’d be chuffed if someone called him a gentleman! Which has identical history and connotations to calling a woman a lady! Gosh, I think we all just need to get a sense of humour and let men be men or something. /sarcasm

  3. How does stuff like this get published? Do racist and homophobic articles get published or just sexist ones? Yuck yuck yuck.

  4. What really hit me was the level of detail he “noted appreciatively”. Bleauuuuugh.
    That, and the utter, utter lack of introspection.
    Jess, I feel like I see less *obviously* racist and homophobic stuff in that particular column, but that could be my privilege showing.
    If anyone feels like writing a response: whenever they have a particularly controversial one, there is often something in response quite quickly. So I think that means that a good response to a controversial column gets some priority over other submissions!

  5. Jerk.

    And equal franchise really was equal for EVERYONE since Federation?

    That Heckler page has peeved me for a while anyways with their stupid cartoon male heckler next to the column. Male as default and all that blech.

  6. Which has identical history and connotations to calling a woman a lady!
    Totally. Heaven forfend that she prefer to be called a woman.

  7. *with shaking hands, takes a packet of forgetness pills from the cupboard and dissolves the lot in a glass of water*
    I’ll lose the last month, but it’ll be worth it…

  8. Just to make it a 2 horse race consider tonight’s TV News on ABC or SBS [I’m not sure which, maybe both] that informed us that the new premier of Tasmania is single at thirty something, no kids [I think that rated a mention] but, as she [sorry dunno her name] explained, she was still looking for Mr. Right.

  9. I happen to be reviewing a book on “how to understand men” just now. This column reminds me of that book.
    The comparison is not flattering.

  10. If his recount is accurate, then her behaviour was stand offish, aggressive and unnecessary. If he misread it then he was being unusually sensitive.
    My question is why is his recount of a personal situation in which he felt violated by a senior staff member to be ridiculed or worse yet simply disbelieved on the basis of the subject matter?
    Where do the responders on this comment roll draw the line between his sensitivity and their own?
    I think it is entirely possibly there exist a myriad of men in the workplace who are bad and good, why not the same for women. Could not there exist an aggressively over sensitive woman who misinterprets a glance as something more than it is and reacts with anger and vitriolic, assumption based rhetoric, supported by her belief that every time she is viewed – She is violated.
    The heckler has every right to correspond his experiences on a blog he is invited to do so on.
    There is no need for anyone to presume his experience is the norm or that this is the way all women behave. It is simply his experience.
    I don’t see why he is misogynistic unless you are prejudice enough to assume that when he says one thing he means another.

    • @Happylittlevegemite,
      Despite your concern that we are mischaracterising a potentially reasonable man making a reasonable point, no matter how I slice it and tilt my head and squint, I’m not seeing it.
      Of course he has a right to say whatever ridiculously insulting things about women he chooses. When he does, we have a right to point out that he is being ridiculous and insulting.
      The misogynist aspect is him taking his experience (even assuming that it happened exactly as he reported) with this one woman as representative of all women, and using that to paint all women as perverse just for no reason other than we can’t work out how not to be.

  11. @tigtog
    Could someone please explain to me though, where he was being definitively misogynistic. I don’t believe he made a generalization in his piece regarding stereotypes for women, nor do I believe he made a sweeping rational against women based on his experience.
    It seems he was scolded like a child for staring, he felt belittled and wrote about his experience and this makes him misogynistic how?
    Are we to assume that he is lying because he is male or are we to assume that she is and was right in her course of action because she wasn’t?
    Ridiculously insulting is devoid of subtlety, yet if he is being flagrant, I am looking for the exact part of his experience that is flagrant and insulting.
    I agree that if someone is being a giant…..whatever, take them to task, but why is it that his experience is to be discounted and you fairly dexterously arouse suspicion of his intent just because of the subject matter.
    I fail to see how that makes him a misogynist, just because he speak ill of an encounter with a women, it’s your choice to see it as a personal attack.
    Reporting on a male misdeed is not misandry, it’s just stating what happened.
    Choosing the presumption that a male is lying or he is prejudiced without further clarification is the action of a predetermined mindset.
    The very thing you claim he has

    • Could someone please explain to me though, where he was being definitively misogynistic.

      I just did that, using the most obvious portion of the article because I was fairly sure that you wouldn’t see the subtler parts, and blow me down if you can’t even see that.
      In the final paragraph of the article, the author extrapolates his alleged experience with this ONE woman, as if it illustrates a general truth about ALL women (and his “truth” is that women are just reflexive contrarians re some masculine habits rather than having legitimate complaints about certain aspects of sexist acculturations and male-coded dominance traditions).
      If you can’t see how treating one woman as if she is the embodiment of the mythical female hivemind (and a silly little hivemind at that) is misogynist, then I don’t think you’re really trying.

%d bloggers like this: