Sexism, Misogyny and the rise and rise and rise of the internet asshole....

a reply to: neformore

What upsets you about the concept of people acting in a civilised manner?

What upsets him is that, specifically, it would mean he would (or should rather) have to defend women

He can't and he won't. Certain people have begun to co-opt the word egalitarian and use it as a kind of firewall

It's meant to stop the discussion dead in it's tracks. It was never intended to be an honest and sincere call for egalitarianism

Just recently I was in a thread about the whole catcalling thing. It's problematic because that situation is not online - and there's talk about making it illegal. The entire subject of misogyny is problematic because we can't legislate behavior and force the good out of all people. We can only punish actual crimes

But - society can demand our best behavior. Even from people who don't feel the love :-)

It's why we ask people to bake cakes when they'd rather not. The way I see it - talking (words - magical words) creates change

When people start standing up to people rather than letting things slide - the world changes

So, it's either up to we individuals to start calling people on all our online crap, or we all start using our real names online

Accountability and a sense of real community. Maybe it had to get this bad before we could actually have this discussion

a reply to: neformore
It takes a lot to make me angry but that is one thing guaranteed to do it-disrespecting women. You're right, men that act that way are a-holes (not sure if I could have used the full word or not but oh well lol)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

With pleasure.

I love words and language, a philologist through and through.

I don’t know if I’d call language meaningless, but you have full rights to your interpretation (no matter how superficial I find it) even if you were unable to grasp that so-called “intent” and “meaning” that are supposedly in them, and had to force it out of your own imagination. I’m not surprised; and in fact this is my point. You are blissfully unaware of my intent and meaning, myself and my actions, that you’ve gone ahead and supplied your own which you now relate back me. My point is not that words are meaningless, but that they are innocent. They do not deserve your condemnation, nor your veneration. By all means slander me, but let's leave the words out of this.

In regards to online bullying, maybe an example—it is quite easy to imply I am a coward, and that I am someone who wishes to waive my responsibility when it comes to helping others in times of need (according to you, only when it comes to women of course), and people will likely be convinced of this sort of lie, but it is actually enlightening for me to witness when someone submits to their own credulity in such a way. I am both inspired and terrified when someone falls prey to their own propaganda.

Allow me to explain. I am curious about what little image you have of me in your imaginative head. Obviously it must be of an ugly sort. So far you’ve painted some contemptible imagery of myself in your little fantasy which you have no reservations with sharing—a coward, a bully, a sexist, and apparently someone who doesn’t defend women; and then I compare this little bogeyman to the amount of facts you actually know about me, and the results are quite telling. When you write about me in such a way, you speak metaphor about no brute facts or reality, but only about your own imagination. In other words, you do not write about me, but yourself. It is a projection of the profoundest sort. Speaking about a fellow human being in such a way, even if there is a thousand miles between them, reveals more about the speaker than who is being spoken against.

Now the question is, should I be offended by this little bogeyman? Or should I feel pity for you, and those who are lead easily by this sort of rhetoric, for an apparent lack of care for how things really are? Well neither, because I realize all you have to work with is my words, and it is likely that you will understand them according to your own understanding, experience, and life.

From what I’ve noticed, this too happens in online bullying. What the bully displays by his online rhetoric, insofar as we have to read it, is the quality of his artistic abilities nothing more. He isn’t capable of producing anything better. If it is aimed at someone he has never met, it is not revealing what he knows, but exactly what he doesn’t know, his ignorance.

Further, how can one bully someone on the internet? What sort of magical physics is involved in this endeavor? Is it really bullying? Or is it something even more insidious? A phenomenon we have yet to discover in the youthful age of the internet?

People paradoxically think they are connecting with others, being a part of a “community”, when in fact they are sitting in a room by themselves. This is dangerous to me. This is the exact opposite of community, the exact opposite of interaction, whether good or bad. You have not once come into contact with a real human being. Online-bullying is a symptom of the fantasy-prone, second-life, virtual generation, who’s only human interaction occurs in their imagination. It only serves to dilute the experience of real bullying, and real traumatic experiences, all of which occurs offline in the real world.

Painfully long post, I know. If you’ve made it this far, it is not because I forced you against your will to do so. Perhaps you skipped most of it. So much the better.

a reply to: neformore

And it has been pointed out repeatedly that your premise is flawed by virtue of a narrow scope amongst other things.
With proof none the less.
Your response to this?
Getting angry, flinging insults, and an continuing attempt to keep the scope narrow.
Oh yes, and saying that if I was to create such a thread I would be in effect "saying women are evil".

Also, you brought accusations misogyny and sexism into the conversation.
I responded.
Perhaps you should be more careful as to the terms you use?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

In regards to online bullying, maybe an example—it is quite easy to imply I am a coward, and that I am someone who wishes to waive my responsibility when it comes to helping others in times of need (according to you, only when it comes to women of course)...

Interesting that you thought it was implied - I thought I was being very direct

You managed to get it mostly right. If I was going to add anything, I would say that you don't so much waive your responsibility as you Scheherazade your way out of doing the right thing by blagging that it's all meaningless anyhow, so why should you bother?

You want to pretend that language is harmless and words are innocent. Bullets are also innocent - intent is everything

This thread is about online abuse of women - and misogyny. So, whatever or whoever else you might decide doesn't deserve your common courtesy or support - this thread is definitely about women

I am both inspired and terrified when someone falls prey to their own propaganda.

Why would you be either - inspired or terrified? They're only words

...I realize all you have to work with is my words, and it is likely that you will understand them according to your own understanding, experience, and life.

You seem to think your words are a kind of meaningless camouflage. You claim to love words and language - but you still feel comfortable saying this:

People paradoxically think they are connecting with others, being a part of a “community”, when in fact they are sitting in a room by themselves...It only serves to dilute the experience of real bullying, and real traumatic experiences, all of which occurs offline in the real world.

It's all the real world. The thing that connects us is language. Our words mean the same thing online as they do off - and hate is hate in here as much as it is out there. We are known by what we say Pinocchio. It's my sincere hope that one day you will become a real boy

Perhaps you skipped most of it. So much the better.

I was seriously tempted - but, you went to so much trouble...

:-)

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

You mean terms like "topic" ?

No, thanks, I'll stiuck to my guns

a reply to: neformore

Too bad the term "topic" is apparently not so accurate.

Rhetoric would fit better.

language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

No, thanks, I'll stiuck to my guns

Which is the problem.
And proves my point.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

I can live with rhetoric. 'Tis my thread after all.

a reply to: neformore

Oh, so a thread author has the right to demand what is said in their thread on this site?
I haven't experienced that to be so.

Why is it different for you?

originally posted by: neformore

originally posted by: jheated5
It has nothing to do with gender, that's what this whole feminazi movement wants you to believe.

Standing up to people who tell women they "deserve to be raped" is "feminazism"?

Very real story from the UK right now...
Jessica Ennis-Hill receives rape threats over Ched Evans stance
www.theguardian.com...

Is that "feminazism" or are those tweets made by actual assholes who have no place in civilised society because they think like animals?

The use of the word, itself,--and you know which word I mean--is as offensive as the use of the 'N' word. Nevertheless, it is allowed on ATS. It clearly violates several ATS Terms of Service. It's political rhetoric intended solely to offend. Why is it allowed?

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Its not.

But you just seem to want to try and make it that way so I'm humoring you.

Have a nice day

a reply to: Bluesma
In truth I dont waste my time with this stuff, most of it is just something I would like to call highly exaggerated claims. If you dont believe me and everybody is going on about how women get called all these things and threatened with rape online.

Well why dont you all do a poll, I mean there are likely hundreds of women on this site at any given moment and likely hundreds who may have read this thread, and probably thousands who come and go on this site off and on. So ya, you can get a good ratio on how many actually get rape threats and all that online. I mean the way you all go on it must be hundreds right, it must happen every day or at least once a week right? I mean you all probably got called all kinds of names and threatened with some unsavory things, in fact from the way everybody goes on it must happen on a hourly bassis. So ya do a poll and lets see what exactly and how many get called all these things on a daily or weekly basis online.

But I am quite sure it may have happened to some woman somewhere at sometime maybe years and years ago, but I seriously doubt its so common, in fact I seen way more guys hitting on women online, and sometimes in hordes, then I seen random dudes threatening a possible woman online because of her gender. And the rest, well it may have happened sometime somewhere to somebody or they heard from somebody who once read an article somewhere, so ya lets just say even when it does happen its in a minority and this whole it happens all the time is a little something I like to call a "highly exaggerated" claims.

But in fact, actually I think I read up to page 4, then I think I skipped on over to page 18 or something and only mainly read any responses I got, I am sure you probably said something on page 3 or whatever, but to tell the truth I skimmed that, and from what I read and of all you said, well its nothing important. I am sorry but I seen these sort of things often enough that none of you have anything to really say, its all just prose and I have wasted enough time reading as far as I have in this thread as it is.

Now! All you need to remember if you forget anything else is this. Apples are Apples and Oranges are Oranges...OK! Do you like get that? Apples are not Oranges nor are they Cucumbers, and they are not the same or equal, there Apples. Same with oranges, I mean how many orange apples do you see around? None right, that's because oranges aren't apples. You can not compare apples and oranges in some random vague meaningless jaberwonkie...Sorry but all you say is illogical, and if you keep on insisting on posting to me with all your illogical fallacies and whatnot. I will tell the mods on you. I mean its insane, am I supposed to believe any of that which you say? Its ridiculous.

a reply to: neformore

No.
You're the one throwing a fit because you're not getting what you expected/wanted.
I'm calling you on it.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: neformore

Oh, so a thread author has the right to demand what is said in their thread on this site?
I haven't experienced that to be so.

Why is it different for you?

No, the author of the thread has the right to demand the thread stay on topic per T&C guidelines. Why are you so determined to derail it? We get it: you think men have the right to verbally abuse women online and that right should be protected. Anyone who disagrees with you is a princess with delicate feelings. That because men speak that way to each other women should just "man-up" and take it. That men experience online verbal abuse also therefore what's the big deal.

Did I leave anything out? Your opinion is duly noted. Can the other posters discuss the topic now?

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

The first four paragraphs you wrote, I can't see any relevance to what I wrote. I have explained- I consider sexist and misogynist comments to be of the type "All women are just mindless idiots" - not insults pointed at an individual.
So you replied to the wrong poster on the subject of insults or threats aimed directly at a person in particular.

Secondly, it is obvious you do not get the idea of value, and measuring the value of something in relation to it's utility for a society.

They do not have to be the same to be considered equally valuable to a society. Firefighters and garbage collectors and nurses are not the same, and yet are equally valuable to a society. If one of those sectors decides to go on strike for an extended period, that becomes painfully clear.

Third, if you feel the need to "tell the mods on me" for posting "logical fallacies" such as this, I say, go ahead. I have backed up my description of equal value with multiple sources of dictionary definition, and have acknowledged yours and anyones right to place differing values on the sexes , as well as my right to place equal value on the two sexes in relation to a society. You go ahead and tell on me and let them decide if my logic is false, and whether I have broken the T&C's of this forum.

a reply to: Malynn

Um no.
Not that I expected anything less.
What I am actually saying is that is obviously a multiaxial situation and not necessarily sexist in nature.
What I am also saying is that solutions exist.
As others have pointed out, there is a mute button.
Pointing out that other so called "solutions" are not at all realistic.
I never said anything about manning up.
Nor did I say it was just males actions that should be accepted by females.
Females can and do talk crap as well.
Rather sexist to think otherwise don't you think?
So far the only sexism I have seen introduced is the persistence to make this a male versus female argument.
And my response to females talking crap is the same as well, they shouldn't be silenced either.
No matter how distasteful I may find it.
Which is also something I'll say, I do not do that crap.
I find it distasteful.
But unlike you and the author, I do not endorse trying to control others according to my own tastes.

And derailing?
Really?
How is any of that not on topic?
It's become plenty obvious that apparently off topic is anything you or the author does not like.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: Malynn
-What I am actually saying is that is obviously a multiaxial situation and not necessarily sexist in nature.

-What I am also saying is that solutions exist. As others have pointed out, there is a mute button.

-Pointing out that other so called "solutions" are not at all realistic.

-Females can and do talk crap as well. Rather sexist to think otherwise don't you think?

-So far the only sexism I have seen introduced is the persistence to make this a male versus female argument.

-But unlike you and the author, I do not endorse trying to control others according to my own tastes.

1. I disagree. Men harassing women is a BILLION times more prevalent than women harassing men. The comparison is almost laughable.

2. Not all of the internet has a mute button. Sure, a lot of games do but it's not like you can go to a forum or social media for example and "hit the mute button."

3. The OP didn't advocate any "solutions" in the OP as I recall. They were merely voicing their extreme disgust for this facet of the male online psyche.

4. See point number one. The two can barely be compared.

5. Requesting posters adhere to the TOPIC is not advocating control of others based upon "tastes". The TOPIC being male treatment of women online, which is far and away worse than women's treatment of men online.

a reply to: Malynn

1. I disagree. Men harassing women is a BILLION times more prevalent than women harassing men. The comparison is almost laughable.

Nice, arguing against something I never said.

2. Not all of the internet has a mute button. Sure, a lot of games do but it's not like you can go to a forum or social media for example and "hit the mute button."

It's called ignore.
Most forums feature this option as does Facebook.

3. The OP didn't advocate any "solutions" in the OP as I recall. They were merely voicing their extreme disgust for this facet of the male online psyche.

Geee.
Another something I never said.
Male online psyche?
That would be the sexism I was talking about.

4. See point number one. The two can barely be compared.

Oh responding to more things I didn't say then?

5. Requesting posters adhere to the TOPIC is not advocating control of others based upon "tastes". The TOPIC being male treatment of women online, which is far and away worse than women's treatment of men online.

Not that you read it the first time:

What I am actually saying is that is obviously a multiaxial situation and not necessarily sexist in nature.

There's an ignore feature here????

Can someone point it out for me, please?

a reply to: Bluesma

www.abovetopsecret.com...