How the Web Became a Sexist's Paradise

Maybe I'm naive but I had no idea that the problem was that bad. My problem, I think, is the fact that the sites I tend to visit are those which "preach to the choir" - places like AlterNet, for instance. I guess it shows a lot about progressives that (let's not be modest for a minute) we tend to be, for the most part, a fairly decent lot. I don't recall ever reading that sort of sexual, verbal harrassment here.

Anyone, please, correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers!

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
"The Rant" by Tom Degan

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kathy Sierra is a software programmer and Java expert. So why didn’t she filter her own blog?

Since flagging keywords like “fuck” would have saved her gigabytes of grief, Sierra is either a masochist or a narcissist. I suspect both.

By the way, before writing this comment, I visited www.CreatingPassionateUsers.com and was greeted by a cookie-cutter temporary home page. Joan of Arc Sierra isn’t.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Well it shows that Feminism needs to comeback with a vengeance. Our societies cannot tolerate the kind of treatment of other human beings. It shocks me how few women my age ( I am in my early 20's) are willing to call themselves feminists. Oh, by the way I am a male. I think feminism need to comeback with a humanist rather than "manhater" image which it has right now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Similar kinds of problems occur on personal sites, where men can know more about women by reading bios and looking at photos then they might in hours of conversation. Since men reading the bio's have a false sense of 'intimacy', and are not dealing with the women directly, they feel free to write all sorts of obscene and lurid comments; these abuses would much less often occur in face to face encounters. Granted women might write a bit racier than normal, although I imagine most a more cautious than usual, men much more often cross the line. Men in their homes, with a false sense of intimacy, feel free to let loose both their rage and their sexual fantasies.

As for dealing with it, creating awareness of the problem might be one part of the solution. More analysis of what kind of, and in what situations, people (men) write in inappropriate ways, along with increased awareness of the problem, as well as social shaming in the media and in public forums, might be another part of the solution. Granted, it will always occur to some degree, but shaming and analyzing the behavior would be the first steps.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alright, so before posting this I took a moment to track down what I think was the picture that caused you so much grief; I ran across Ann's blog in the process as well and... Wow. Dense as lead. Anyway, back to your picture, the shirt isn't an issue at all, it's very respectable, it's just that, the way the shadows fall and the light hits it...

I'll say it. You've got boobs. The picture emphasizes the size of them and I could conceive of a nut going off on your for it because, frankly, stranger things have happened. That being said, they are right there, and hey, they look good. You, yourself, look very nice in that picture; you obviously aren't attempting to play to baser emotions, but at the same time, you catch the eye. At this point, most people have already moved past this post because I'm dwelling on your physical traits, but that's part of the point I'm attempting to make.

From the picture, it's pretty clear that you're wearing make-up. Since you seem well-read, I'm going to assume you're not just a zombie following the fashion trends. You want to look nice, and what's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing, but somehow the fact that a person (typically a guy) mentions that and women freak out. Even a "hey, nice rack" can be meant as a compliment without the guy secretly prepping the chloroform and rag. So it comes off as uncouth; that just how some guys are. Not everyone is well spoken, and sometimes a poorly worded compliment is still a compliment. Obviously, women wear make-up to get noticed physically (I don't know of any make-up that enhances the look of your brains, but I'm sure some pharmacist is working on it as we speak), so when you do get noticed, maybe there's a reason for it. And maybe the guy isn't shallow, but all he's got is a first impression, so he's working with what you've given him thus far.

On to point two: Clearly, there is a line between a well-meaning wolf-whistle (of approval, mind you) and "I want to fuck you until you're bleeding ... ad nauseum" (pun intended). And this is where I think you're jumping on Mr. HughScott unfairly. Ask any law enforcement agent, anyone in personal protection, and anyone who has grown up on the mean streets; when you play the victim, you are made the victim. Should women have to put up with men who aren't saints? No, but that isn't going to stop it from happening. Just like you can't police people's minds, you can't control how people talk to you on the internet. What you can do is learn to take it in stride and defend yourself. Why should a woman immediately feel threatened when a man comes onto her? Right away she assumes the defensive position which nudges the man into the aggressor's seat. Instead, keep it equal. Respond to the first aggressor in a reasonable manner that let's them know you mean business, and move on. Isn't that what feminism is about? An equal playing field? If that's what you want, you (be you male or female) are going to need to develop the proper thickness of skin to deal with a harsh world. That's not a pontification, it's just how it goes. You can't control others, but you can control yourself. And heck, if you still don't feel safe, go get a gun and learn to use it. Or pick up a martial art. If a guy comes at violently, find a way to fend him off.

And if you're going to start saying that you shouldn't have to defend yourself, well, frankly, then it doesn't sound like you want to be equal, it sounds like you want to be privileged, because believe me, defending yourself is part of playing the field.

While I'm at it, I'd like to throw one last thought out there. You mentioned how every person on the internet is assumed to be a white male. Why is that? Perhaps because white European males (specifically British) have shaped our modern world to the point where, until we all recognize it, is something we'll all just have to get used to.

(Continued below)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do hard-core Republicans seem more hostile to women, particularly smart, independent, liberal women, than Democrats?

One writer on the topic noted that many, if not most, of the hostilities came from readers of a right-wing news blog; I believe it was Free Republic. My own sense is that conservative hostility isn't typically directed at women's abilities, but at women's anatomy, sexual orientation, or 'femininity'. Even then, it can be an attack on her for being too feminine, as with the jibes at the outed CIA agent, Valerie Plame, for CNN/CNBC for wearing pink.

Anyone remember liberals attacking Laura Bush? Not that I know of, other than attacks at her for being married to the chimpanzee in power, or supporting it in public events. Although Hillary Clinton was lauded in the press, she is often the butt of conservative male attack.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As a male, I find gratuitous female bashing offensive, so when a guy started making really obscene remarks to the females I was playing with at a game site, I deflected the attention to myself. This individual then made a series of really objectionable remarks about me and female relatives. He would have never had the nerve to make them in person - it would have been an unhealthy thing to do. So I got him banned. Would have loved to give him a personal lesson in manners though.

I often find myself on the other side of arguments with women I consider radical feminists - some of them are pretty rude. But there is no excuse for the kind of bullying discribed in the blog - period. Shame these idiots can't be tracked down and charged with the appropriate crime. Any threat of physical violence is assault. The more serious threats are terroristic threats.

Sorry this crap happens, someday we'll be able to stop it without interfering with legitimate free speech in any way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Read some radical feminists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Internet works both ways; it brings out the geniuses and the weanies.
"Is this what people are really like? Sexist and violent? Misogynist and racist?"
Not everyone but many are. Don Imus had an audience of millions.
On-line stalkers/abusers are cowards. They feel they are powerless over themselves and the world. That's why they would never say what they say to your face or in any but an anonymous situation. I'm a construction worker. The grafitti in construction site port-o-potties is very much the same as as described in the article, with the majority being racist, homophobic, xenophobic, with a little "I f***ed your mother" mysogeny. There are even threads. For the life of me, as I look around and talk to people on the job-site, I don't get a clue as to who the authors are. Because they are weak, timid, cowards who would never, ever express themselves in a face-to-face situation. There's a reason why the KKK wear hoods over their faces.
So challenge the weak little bastards to come out of hiding.
"Hey, little boy! Are you going to tell me who you are, or are you going to cower in fear behind the bushes? You can't be afraid of li'l ole me!"
It might shut some of them up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've seen it happen here in the posting on on alternet - these chickenshit turds seem to like to patrol progressive sites and throughly abuse anyone who even vaguely supports feminist thought. Didn't seem to matter to them whether or not the poster was possibly male. Haven't seen as much of it here since a bunch of us begin to tell those idiots to go straight to hell.... I suspect it is a relatively small bunch of highly immature loser males who believe the crap they see in the porno flicks and on that thar TEE VEE show who pull this sick behavior. Best thing to do is to tell them to go F*** themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And seem to hate women in general, not whiners, women. Yes, indeed, guys, as you point out, there's a difference, and it's obvious. I'd ask if these guys who respond to every feminist article want the women in their lives treated this way, but I can't imagine these guys with any women in their lives. The very subject of women seems to rob them of all reason. An article about the gender pay gap is responded to with the wise observation that men work in mines, and that sucks. The very logical conclusion: women should not care about any pay gap, because men have bad mine jobs. Women should not even NOTICE a wage gap; after all, men have some pretty bad jobs. And that's the most logical thing that that one has come up with. Another uses namecalling, "moron" and "dope" seem to sum up his thinking ability. For another, it's LOL or "hysterical" as if that settles it (he also occasionally cries). This is a liberal site, and why anyone would object to feminist articles on it is puzzling, but why these men in particular keep reading the articles they obviously hate, and have no intention reading in a thoughtful manner, is even more puzzling, and even creepy, especially given that the name-caller seems to remember certain womens' posts quite well, and will insert a post from months ago to prove what a dope or moron that woman is in his narrow mind. Most people give up when they see what they're doing is futile, and if these men think they're going to bring feminism to a halt, well, they're attempting the futile. A definition of insanity is repeating the same action expecting different results. Guys, it is too late. The train pulled out long ago, and you can't seem to give up crying about it. You can't stop this movement, or even affect it. You claim to despise whiners, yet alternet runs a feminist article and your whine meters rev up. I truly believe you are drawn to these articles beyond your control; no one who hates reading anything as much as you hate reading feminism would keep it up for anything other than addiction or obsession. Unless, of course, you don't read the articles at all; you merely see the feminist topic, jump to the comments, and start spewing the hate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A PHD, I ain't.......But, I have been all over the world and parts of Alabama. Here's the problem. In the USA today, we have achieved a standard of living that allows a lot of lazy people to coast along as if they actually contribute something to society. These are the people who voted for and elected George Bush twice - three times if you count daddy. These are the people who believe in the War in Iraq. It's the Chrisitian thing to do. Send bombs and money, not missionaries and food and doctors and school teachers. Only an evil tyrant like Fidel Castro rules a country where there is a glut of doctors and teachers, two things Cuba exports to the world. Yep, here in the good ol' USA, we have legalized torture and the Bill of Rights is just a meaningless piece of paper. So, that being said, the reason so many people attack women, helpless Iraqis, etc. is that we live in a nation of cowards. To afraid to go and fight in Iraq. To afraid to admit that lying about a blowjob is nothing compared to lying about anything to justify a costly (and nicely profitable) war. So, let the cowards type away, let 'em shout on TV, let 'em loot this country until there is nothng left to loot. Then, maybe, we can start from scratch again and all of those cowards will starve to death because they will not be able to do anything but smell the stench that soils their underwear. The cowards will be too lazy, too stupid and too useless to do anything else

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Would Have To Say That E-Mail Warriors Are E-Mail Warriors Because They Lack The Courage To Say Or Do Anything In The Light,Only By Obscureity And Anonymity Can They Pretend To Be Threatening.If Someone Actually Knew Who And Where They Were,They Would Run Away With Their Tiny Little Tail Tucked Between Their Legs

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is what this article indicates about how men are abused in our society. Little boys don't begin life pathologically out of touch with their fundamental decency. They have to be carefully socialized to equate bullying with power, a pat on the head from alpha-dog with success, failure to receive a pat on the head with utter worthlessness. And most important, they have to learn never never never to notice how what they do to achieve alphadog's pat often involves selling out everything that makes them human, all that they loved as little boys.

Any wonder some grow up full of rage, and only able to express it toward projected mommies?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's really all there is to say about 95% of so-called liberal's advice to women to "take their safety into their own hands." Hugh Scott and his ilk, for as much as it might otherwise seem, can't say that he really cares about his daughters (or wife or aunts or mother or neices or female cousins/friends), when in the same breath he sub-ordinates their desires/actions to the desires/actions of men who hate women.

Admittedly, there is a certain logic to women protecting themselves. As one woman pointed out though, this is biased from the male perspective in two ways: men are typically more evenly matched, physically speaking, and men do not really know what it's like to be categorically hated by at least half of the population. That notwithstanding, the very fact that women should "have to take her safety into their own hands" should not give Hugh Scott one ounce of comfort; it should fill him with as much rage as the fact of any one of them getting raped/beaten/sexualized.

Men who in any way think women are responsible for why, categorically speaking, they are hated by men, are impossibly in the misogynist's woman-hating rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

... we've got a regular sty of little porkers ... they oink the same Fathers' Rights Party swill their dads chewed over 35 years ago .. they get debunked, refuted, disrespected, name-called, ignored, passed over, condescended to and berated

And yet ... they always come back for more.

Look up " narcissist personality disorder with masochistic characteristics " in DSM-whatever-number-they're-up-to-this-year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We all need to take action to reduce this society-shredding hatred being spewed by a contingent of hatefilled men.

They do it because they get away with it. The same reason people torture puppies.

They have angers and aggressions, many of which may be simply natural, if dangerous, impulses.

They need to learn to control them. This will only happen if they are disciplined by society for venting them.

The fact that they are rational to some degree is exposed by their behavior -- they are attacking anonymously, in packs, against victimized, weak groups like women.

They aren't going to NFL training camps and screaming obscenities at the big guys.

They know who is unlikely to be able to respond effectively to shut them up. They attack the weak.

It used to be blacks. But blacks have gotten more difficult to victimize over the past 40 years. So, now it's illegal immigrants and, still, women.

Same old hate. Just opportunistically vented in directions from which the appropriate reaction is unlikely to come.

This article is a start at an appropriate reaction: You're a sick jerk, we don't like you and you should shut up.

They all need to just put a cork in it.

Jan VanDenBerg

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As long as we continue to attack each other. So, I can see very clearly that we have a bunch of man haters venting.
Jeez you think Hugh Scott is the enemy? Wake up! As long as progressives continue to identify with identity politics we will lose.

Shut up misogynist rappers?

You mean CENSORSHIP?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

on BBs, chats, blogs, etc. among the "misogynists". At one extreme are the ones who threaten and are violent, like the ones mentioned in the article. But it is all a matter of degree.

At the other end, are those who simply condescend. They seem like intelligent, often liberal (but sometimes conservative), civilized men. But they condescend. Oh, do they CONDESCEND.

Women, no matter how logical or intelligent their arguments, are simply...disregarded. Ignored. Shunned. Let a man repeat a woman's ignored argument/theory/idea/opinion, and he is a GENIUS!

I have found by posting in various places under female, male, and gender-neutral handles, that if you want abuse or to be disregarded, appear to be female. If you appear to be male, you will be welcomed and treated with comaraderie. If you are gender neutral, people will try to figure out which you are! Try it - but you will really have to be able to play the part.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A thoughtful article on an important topic, thanks for posting. What a awful experience for the author to go through, must have felt like a nightmare.

For another interesting article on this topic see the April 2007 Salon article: Men who hate women on the web by Joan Ryan. Ryan discusses her experience and her reflections about Kathy Sierra's harassment.

Then check out some of the disturbingly misogynistic comments on Salon in response to Ryan's article (and the excellent rebuttals). I'm glad this issue is being recognized. Otherwise "thoughtful public discourse" will become an oxymoron.

Disturbing though to think of some of the deep-seated hatred for women that only gets exposed anonymously.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Type Radical Feminist Quotes in Google and you will
find dozens of loathsome, despicable remarks about
the male sex. Some of the women, mostly hardcore,
radical, lesbian feminists, would like all members of the
male sex herded up and put in concentration camps so
they can gather up their sperm then and artificially inseminate
the women to keep the human race alive. Naturally, the female babies will be nurtured and brainwashed to become compliant members of Lesbos, while the men, I guess, will have to resort to other means of sexual pleasure amongst themselves. The Liberated Women's Utopia, brought to you by male-hating women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The illusion of the internet is that you can become anyone you choose in what is believed to be relatively speaking an anonymous setting. It is understandable therefore that folks might choose to migrate to this means to express repressed feelings which in the prevailing PC dogma in place today, chooses to shut off any and all meaningful open full disclosure dialog on any subject. Today’s polarized society makes It exceedingly difficult for many to feel they have a legitimate place in which to give voice to their ideas, feelings, thought or desires. This by no means is meant to justify the use of the internet as a sexist merely to express a possible rationale for why it may exist.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anybody who hates somebody's blog (or website or whatever) that much, but still feels the need to insult the person for it instead of just not wasting their time on it is a total idiot in my eyes.

Anonymous people on the web who make such ignorant, uneducated and inane comments to people they hate are a waste of everyone's time.

The sad thing is that most women will just take guys' comments to them (sexist or sexual in nature) and go along with it. Its every man and woman's right to defend themselves, so I hope more women will speak up when they feel disrespected.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of vicious contempt being thrown back and forth here and what good is to come of it?

I had never heard of Ms Sierra or her blog before the threats nor of Ms Valenti and Feministing before The NYT article. I am glad I found Feministing because it is smart and funny and somewhere I would return to for the intelligent young women pov.

I don't know what the answer to assholes is, but from the comments I have read so far, neither does anyone else, if the attempt was even made. For the most part it has been a problem defining smack-down competition.

The author writes:
"It won't mean the end of misogyny on the web, but it is a start. Such campaigns show that women are ready to demand freedom from harassment and fear in our new public spaces. In the same way that we should be able to walk down the street without fear of being raped, women shouldn't have to stay quiet online -- or pretend to be men -- to be free of threats and harassment. It is time to take back the sites.",
This either fails to explain how this is to be enforced or, and please forgive me, I failed to see it.

Censorship? We already have enforceable hate-speech and violent threat laws that would apply to the worst offenders, do we really want to extend their reach to include plain, run-of-the-mill assholes? This might include me or even Ms Valenti by someone's judgement.

Ms Sierra immediately accused several individuals of either perpetrating or allowing the violent threats to be posted online, so I am curious as to why she hasn't pursued legal action. By her technical expertise she must know that complete anonymity on the web is difficult, if not impossible.

Take Back the Tech's exposure solution is a great idea, both from a consequential and voyeuristic perspective. Unfortunately it will also bring out daring narcissists who will commit offensive but legal acts against others for the notoriety.

No one is ever completely free from the threat of physical violence, sadly enough, so it is unreasonable to expect freedom from verbal abuse. We simply haven't evolved the assholes out of our species yet and I doubt seriously if we ever will, so is life.

I'm sure, if this is read by the right people (if at all) I will be attacked for saying that I do not entirely buy Ms. Sierra's story, what I know of it. If Ms. Sierra truly feared for her life she should have contacted the FBI because there are laws against threats of bodily harm. Not doing so goes against everything this Alter-Net article speaks to and not once did Ms. Valenti address this when prosecution should be the first step in correcting the problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I had no idea until the advent of the web that misogyny was such a pervasive disorder in our society. I understand that many posters of hateful material against women are teenage smart asses who are merely trying to be shocking but there are many, many cases of seriously deranged individuals who let it all hang out on the web. The adult content sites are full of material showing violence against women. What is it that is causing this? I've read case histories of men who have had painful experiences in dealing with women but are there many cases where this is this sufficient reason to so profoundly warp the natural instinct for the sexes to treasure each other?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...about, oh, say, George W. Bush, what would the police have done?

Would we think differently about them?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think that enough is being said, so I'll say so more. You're point comes across that teaching women to be cautious is really the only thing we can and should do about misogyny. You give the impression that there is no avoiding misogyny, and to that exetent that we shouldn't be talking about stopping it, because that is utter nonsense because it can't be avoided.

You suggest that Kathy Sierra filter her blog or email or whatever if she doesn't want to be confronted with misogyny. Of course, between now and the potential end of misogyny women will encounter it, but what you suggest is that they/we ignore misogyny, and in that silent, perfectly faux-liberal way endorse it.

Sure, Kathy Sierra doesn't want to be confronted with misogyny; I'm sure she'd just as soon as have it not exist at all. This isn't the way things are though - misogyny exists - but how is ignoring misogyny a way of addressing it? It sure as hell isn't. In a way, the eruption of misogyny on the internet is probably a product of the same kind of process of ignorning it, while silently endorsing it, that has gone one for the last who knows how many years. We have sought relatively quick and easy solutions to misogyny in our society, saying no to it in the form of laws to giving it a certain "tastelessness" in less formal social situations. We put on a wonderful show when in the public square, but once we go home, literally or figuratively, where the faux-scorn of the public eye is less immediate, all bets are off. Of course, this has been a way of co-opting the feminist critique of misogyny, so that we can put the hush on feminists' complaints and not misogyny.

So, when you say that you address misogyny by arming your daughters (and/or other women in your life) with the tool of caution for the misogynistic (by that you really just mean being physically raped or beaten, not the gamut of sutble psychological and systemic abuse women suffer), you are not asking that we do away with misogyny, but that women (and men) cow-tow to its inevitablity.

You seem to support this tactic with the belief that "men are animals," or in otherwords that misogyny is natural. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, then your tactic makes no sense, because if your unwilling to address misogyny because it is natural, then why should you address the natural outcome of misogyny? Why should you teach your daughters to protect themselves, which would go against the natural course of misogyny? Of course, I might very well be wrong, and you don't think men are naturally misogynistic; you certainly act as if you feel unpolluted by it yourself. In that case, your self-defense tactic for your daughters still makes no sense, for the more simple reason that if men don't have to be misogynistic, why are we allowing them to be such without question, and simply asking that our daughters/mothers/wives/nieces/friends arm themselves against male hatred - arm themselves, mind you, by avoiding misogyny's gaze and territory, and saying it make exist where it will?

Your daughters should not have to be afraid of misogyny. They will know it's out there, but saying that it is okay for them to be afraid of it, that they should lives in their well protected and "cautious" fear, is saying that misogyny is okay. The more responsible course of action is make misogyny MORE visable so we can engage and critique it, because it's out there, and not LESS. We should make it MORE visable, but not at the expense of people's safety - as would be the case if Kathy Sierra didn't heed the potential danger of her hateful commentors' threats. That means creating a supportive atmosphere admist male hatred. That means making women (and men) feel safe to critique misogyny/patriarchy without having to protect themselves, because it is not the individual's responsibility to protect themself against social violence - it is society's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When are we going to have a serious discussion that details and analyzes the rising tide of female violence, discrimination and pedophilia taking place in this country? Will Alternet dare broach that subject? Somehow I doubt it.

Another poster made the interesting point, albeit it in a very rude and abrupt manner, that American women represent the fastest growing demographic when it comes to violent crime. That the statistics implicate men far more often does not in any way excuse the behavior or lessen the need for open discussion about what is happening in regards to female behavior. I happened to read about all those stories, and in case you missed the post above, they were grotesque.

One woman chopped another woman up with a chainsaw and then burned the dismembered corpse. Another woman was indeeed on the FBI Most Wanted List, and at least one woman drowned her babies while another attempted to do so. The charge of pedophilia is the most disturbing and represents a huge double standard as the woman (educator I believe) who slept with an 11-year-old boy will likely get a slap on the wrist and be sent to a summer camp. The other teacher who slept with 14 and 15-year-old boys will likely receive the same sentence. Imagine the reaction if a male teacher had raped an 11-year-old girl? There were numerous other outrageous stories about female violent crimes yet we hear very little about that. So, should it be discussed or does it take a back seat until we have resolved the issue of male violence and misogyny?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those who decry "man hating feminists" here are repeating the same nauseating caricatures of the right wing. What instead we are discussing here is the deliberate targeting of women bloggers with vile and nasty threats of physical and sexual harm.

The comment about the KKK is very apt. Why else hide behind the hoods than to express the basest aspect of humanity? Unfortunately, the legions of dysfunctional vicious human beings seems to be growing and high tech lynching is one of its expressions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I had no idea it was this bad but on a non-lefty board, people were so abusive I left. It was weird. It's like the cyber equivalent of being in fourth grade again.

This story reminds of something a few years back about guys who threw acid in the faces of women in Egypt. They said it was a growing problem because guys weren't making enough money to be attractive marriage prospects to women who would otherwise be attainable. So to counter feeling emasculated, the lash out in hyper-masculine aggression and violence.

The economic part of that is probably increasingly true here, and this is the digital equivalent of throwning acid in a woman's face because you can't have her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sorry, was that necessary?

I think you only exposed how little women are aware of our actions towards men. Yes, there are women out there who are as sexist towards men as some men are to women. We may not be proud of them, but they exist. Ignoring feminist extremists is no better than men attempting to excuse their sexist behaviors.

Please, pay attention to what you're saying. Men are not the cause of all bad things in this world, and in fact, your ignorance has only made it clear how unequal things are. Men can do wrong but women can't? If you want equality, then we both have to admit our faults.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Valenti wrote, “Thankfully, women are fighting back. Sparked by the violent harassment of Sierra, one blogger started a "stop cyberbullying" campaign. This was picked up by hundreds of other bloggers and an international women's technology organisation, Take Back the Tech, a global network of women who encourage people to "take back online spaces" by writing, video blogging, or podcasting about online harassment. It won't mean the end of misogyny on the web, but it is a start.”

SOME START!

Valenti failed to mention the most important resource cyberstalking victims have, the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC) stalking page accessed with the link below:

www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Cyberstalking814

So quit bashing men and get educated, ladies. Until that happens, you will continue to be victimized.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the stupidest and/or most radical tend to yell the loudest, and often they harbor anger towards women who are clearly more articulate and/or successful than they, therefore they hold their sexuality against them--because, apparently many people are too privative to create arguments (or hell, even insults) based on sound reason rather--
This happens to Anne Coulter all the time. I hate Anne Coulter as much as the next reasonable, progressive minded woman does and don't believe that she deserves a public platform to present her ill-formed ideas and should be (further) discredited. However, I find it extremely unfortunate that the that one of the links near the top of the page if you google her is http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/, which is clearly satirical, but is using an often degrading sexual act to punish a much-reviled public figure who happens to be female. Further, if you search her name on facebook (I'm showing my age here), you will find more than one group that has a reference to sexually brutalizing her. I don't even have to argue why that's unacceptable.

I have never been a target of internet bullying myself (that's because no one actually reads http://popularheresy.blogspot.com/ ((you should))) nor could I imagine any situation where I would be attached in such a way--but that only speaks for my incapacity to conceptualize people being irrational.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Many of these bloggers seem to come from the sheltered middle class. They likely went to "good" (poor people don't go there) colleges, and live/work in sheltered areas of the country. The comments mentioned are nothing unexpected or shocking to a young person who grew up in a poor neighborhood. I heard all that and more before I was 7 years old just by going to elementary school.

Poor people use the internet too, deal with it. That's the best advice I can give you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My story begins with a mother who was very harshly critical and who had to be the center of the universe, and a dear father, the best dad one could ever had.

I was raped when I was sixteen whilst being driven home by who I thought to trust, the husband of the couple I babysat for. He asked me on the way home if I'd enjoy seeing the new office they were building for him. I was not dressed provocatively, but I was in a dress that I wore to school. It was savage, he tore my stockings and knocked me to the floor.

I was paralysed by this event and found a way to get to my bedroom without my parents seeing me. I thought, very justifiably, that my mother would blame me. I didn't tell anyone for 14 years.

I went through two marriages to violent men, one so verbally abusive my friends stopped coming round. In my thinking, I had made my bed, this is what I was worth.

When I finally regained my courage, my then husband started to abuse my son physically. That's when I went to court and got a protection order. He then sent his son to park in front of my house, and the boy slashed my tires.

I was a frightened woman. I wouldn't date or go near men for years after my divorce for fear I'd attract another man like that. I thought it was me. I had been taught to be a victim.

That dad of mine, though, he had gave me strength, independence and courage.

Through the process of changing me, the pattern of bullies in my life changed from spouses, to female friends, to a male boss, to a female boss. I was still a victim, thinking and acting like one.

My thinking has changed. I am not afraid. I don't take bullying personally. I try to understand them. In most cases, they have developed negative behaviour and habits from trauma. Their rage isn't about me or you, it's about them. It can be directed anywhere at anyone - male or female.

I'm saying I'm not afraid, but an aversion to something is fear, and I don't like judgmental comments. I work on that, because reaction to ignorance doesn't solve the problem. Problems of racism, hatred or verbal abuse can't be solved at the level they are created. Answering them with more judgmental and ignorant remarks will never work. Pounding a bully doesn't change him - they may move off you, but they will bully others.

Yes, the powerful take advantage of the less powerful - bosses, politicians, priests, landlords, parents even.

I haven't had a bully in my life for a couple of years now, and I'm not "extra" cautious. I'm a big girl, I can take the ignorance of some men. I understand it. I don't like it, but I choose not to respond to it (because it gives it justification and more fuel).

Every single one of us has problems, every single one of us is guilty of causing a misunderstanding that leads to someone else's suffering. Every one of us has reacted in anger and blamed the other person for it. In today's western society, we believe our feelings are caused outside of us and happen to us and we don't take responsibility for them. We blame.

This article is about is more than just male ignorance, it is about men crossing the line with death threats and violent messages toward women in blogs. Real violent acts have consequences that society supports. But the problem is, how is that done in this venue? And how seriously should we take this?

I wouldn't venture to say that people in this venue that make vile threats anonymously only have the courage because they are anonymous. Because negative habits don't get better, and when fueled, they get worse. If you don't work on fixing a bad habit or behaviour pattern, it only grows. And for some of these men, it will become real violence. Other men need to be supportive and understanding of that, as understanding women would need to be supportive of a male victim.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Men are far more likely statistically to be the victims of violence. All the labelling IMO doesn't help.

To some of those branding people as mysoginists etc perhaps they could turn the argument around to where they are part of a larger group committing violence on another group.

Maybe.....Americans? i.e. America is inflicting enormous violence in the wider world, thus are all Americans violent and thus my enemy?

I am a male human. I abhor violence. I see violent speech and harassment by both male and female fellow humans equally.

I, as a male, am not responsible for those actions or words, if I speak out in a rational manner.

Equally if I choose to discuss the incidence, then I am not on one "side" or the other. This black vs white thinking is stifling debate. It draws attention from the reality to arguing over rhetoric.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been online in various forms since the days of the old Bulletin Boards (yes, I am that old), and spend time still on Usenet as well as more modern fora such as this one.

Online misogyny isn't a new phenomenon. Part of it, I think stems from the days when technology was mostly a Boy's Club--there just weren't many women online. Many early access points were in Universities (engineering, computer science) or the military. Both of these tended to be male-only. When women began coming online there was a decidedly "locker-room" reaction among most of the men I worked with--the women were "invading" what had been male-only turf. I think part of the current online misogyny stems from a lingering feeling that women are now in of one of the last male bastions, no matter how long it's been since the 'net became widely accessible.

Another aspect, only again in my assessment of my years reading online fora, is that there are strong feelings of frustration and backlash for a lot of men. Reading various Web fora and Usenet groups for men and men's issues, there's a continuum. Some men are concerned with topics like inequitable child custody, presumption of male guilt in some criminal cases (see the Duke rape case), and other legitimate concerns. Then the spectrum goes more radical, all the way to posters who advocate decriminalization of rape, decry women as "incomplete men" and just flat-out hate women. Some are obviously looking for attention, but some mean it. Anonymous fora allow these types of voice their opinions without repercussions.

Frustration seems to be a key factor in most of the misogynistic rants I read online. YMMV.
Some, towards the middle of the spectrum, I think may be more frustrated than true woman-haters. Support groups feature men who have difficulty dating who vent that frustration in uncivil ways. Others may, like the Egyptian acid-throwers, be demonstrating an unhealthy attitude towards women and their public achievements. Some of these men truly believe that the public sphere is for men, and women's place is in the home. Sucessful women may be threatening for some of these men, who may be less than successful themselves. Some men do not want to associate with women who are better educated, make more money, or achieve greater prestige. While these men would likely never have the nerve to follow through on their threats towards publicly successful women, they still indicate that there's a fairly high level of men feeling threatened by these women.

For some of the nastier misogynistic posters, I think there's a real resentment of changing gender roles. Post-feminism, women's place is wherever they want it to be. Bravo, but not everyone agrees. Some men liked it the way it was--men went out to work and to war, and gained the public accolades. Women kept the home and raised the children. Reading some of the more vicious Usenet groups (which I advise only in small doses--it induces headaches) paints unpleasant pictures of some small-minded men who like women just fine, as long as said women know their place. These groups are frequently cross-posted with anti-semetic and racist groups--there's just a lot of hate out there. Now such people don't have to seethe alone. Now they can find others of their ilk with whom to socialize, and gradually to convince themselves that their views are normal.

I guess what this incredibly long-winded post is about is that there have always been the haters. Always have been, always will be. But now they can find others of their kind and they can attack anonymously. For some it's probably cathartic and let's them blow off a little steam. For others it's probably making them worse than they were. I have no solutions, except to observe that they've been online for as long as online's been possible. Ugly, yes, scary, yes, but probably most of them are just losers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hate is born out of fear. The males threatening female bloggers feel threatened by them. These women are too intelligent and thought provoking for them so they resort to intimidation. It's why so-called talk radio is so full of anger and noise.

Is this the great USA? It seems that not much separates us from the terrorists we vilify so much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms Valenti is at it again--apparently they had a slow news day at Feministing and needed a major crisis to discuss. This week's whiney bitchfest is Misogyny on the Web.
Where Valenti digs up these wacky stories is considered one of the great conundrums of the 21st Century. As evidence, our intrepid Feminist Journalist Sleuth brings to our attention the trials and tribulations of three much maligned and indignant bloggers. The first has gone so far as to contact the police demanding a full investigation because someone said: "Fuck off you boring slut...I hope someone slits your throat..":
Well, I have to admit she is damn boring... but in a nice way...and certainly not bad enough to slit her throat. I went on her site, and for someone that is "terrified to even leave the house," she sure seems to be having a good time basking in the glow of attention--after all why do people write blogs?
Our next blogger Ms Filipovic opines that "women are much more sexualized than men." And complains when they are called "whores." Hmmm... well lets see, fish net stockings, black hose with stilletto heels, push-up bras, Daisy Maes , boy shorts, Mini skirts, blood red nails, oversized lips (a la lip stick and gloss), thongs, see-thru blouses, Fredericks of Hollywood, Victorias Secrets, mini skirts, micro skirts, skirts with long slits, eye shadow, tight sweaters--yeah.. totally uncalled for...all women are just a bunch of Nuns praying to Jesus..no whores here... just sweet apple pie little innocent girls.
The last example of Web Misogny has Ms Marwick complaining about having an innocent pic of her in a group photo criticized for her large breasts--unfortunately this was initiated by a female blogger and unless she wants to assert that women are just as bad as men in terms of misogyny, Valenti should not have presented this example.
Her last addendum of trite nonsense pertains to a University of Maryland Study claiming that feminine usernames obtain 163 more threatening/sexually explicit mesages a day. This certainly has the imprimateur of a raging radical feminist pollster (otherwise known as "The Unbiased Professor of Women's Studies). Her signature is when they don't have enough numbers to relegate their hysterical fanatical readers into paroxysms of terror, they usually combine two different issues: in this case " harassment" and "sexually explicit." Of course, the University resident Fascist Feminist couldn't be bothered to define "sexually explicit," so we have no idea if it means a few prepubescents with too much time on their hands or a few old men trying to score with young tender teenagers. But of course this academician leaves it to our fecund minds to contemplate--so much for professionalism.
Perhaps this vitriol-- as Ms Valenti puts it-- is a backlash to the efforts of bored self absorbed narcissistic bloggers driving everyone crazy with their endlessly facile attempts to garner public attention--much like Ms Valenti's attempt to stir the Feminist Pot about something near and dear to feminist hearts: The Inane.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overall I've been surprised at the high level of argument. I have seen this kind of discussion degenerate into insult fests between male and female psychos - in fact that happens quite frequently as we all know. Definitely not saying I agreed with everything I read on either side, but most of the comment thus far has been well reasoned, sincere, respectful and worth reading. Congrats to those of you who made that effort.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's more likely that the reason for the severe gender-based vitriol was because the author was writing on gender issues. That was the easiest thing to attack the writer with, so that's what the people commenting chose. She then made it worse by complaining about it. It's like schoolyard teasing. They called her a stupid whore because she writes a feminist blog, it was the most obvious way to upset her.

Grow a thick skin and fire back just as hard. Don't get upset about it, because that's all trolls are looking for: a response.

Or as we say around my neck of these here internets,

INTERNET. SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HughScott's comment seems all too familiar to me. Stalkers often blame the victim. I'm not saying HughScott is a stalker, but I've observed many on online stalker pop up and begin making statements like HughScott has here. Things like, "she seems to like the attention", or "he is an attention monger", and so on. It's part of the stalker's need to recruit more stalkers.

There have been other cases similar to this. There was this stalker named "KOBE SBM" who was stalking political targets all over the web, defaming them, posting personal information on them, posting doctored photos, making false accusations about alleged criminal records and so on. He even ran a website called "KOBEHQ" where he organized stalkers to harass people (his website is still online).

In my personal opinion, these stalkers are mentally deranged people without lives of their own. The best way to deal with them, as hard as it may be, is to ignore them, not respond to them, and dismiss them as the losers they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

being macho is a disease and there are A LOT of diseased males in the world. like most diseases macho should have a cure. any suggestions? and no, killing us off will not suffice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in the early days of the web, about the mid 1990s, a chinese friend of mine was looking for sites for asian women. she was horrified that of the many, many returns even that early in the history of the www, the majority were sex sites offering the sexual delights of asian women.

the www is really now an model of the way society is.

peace

annm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Dali Lama is right, KINDNESS is the greatest. Try it, it makes you feel good. Also in the long run it's the only thing that will work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a lot of nonsense. Don't believe any of it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Modern society has caused more damage to women in the past 50 years than in all of the time before that...we live in a sick, consumerist-driven society where women are entranced by deceptive marketing ("It's so shiny and pretty!") and thus they spend all of their money on a bunch of useless BS (see that book THE SECRET, unending clothes/sheos, etc) and their time in a fruitless chase trying to earn more money to buy more BS.

Women are by nature sensitive, nurturing, and caring souls, and they require ample attention and touch, i.e. they need to care for people and have people (husband, children, family) care for them at the same time; but in our current aloof, touch starved, selfish society none of those needs are filled any longer because, once again, they have become entranced by the marketing machine and have lost their way. Much the same for many men, too.

Also, since most females these days are growing up without fathers it makes their negativity and suspicion toward men grow strong, and thus perpetuates their cycle of loneliness.

Western women are so unhappy these days...it's so sad. And that's why I don't date American women anymore (and would never marry/have kids with one)...saddest souls in the entire World.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I haven't seen anyone say it yet, though in an earlier of my posts I danced around it.

Women have been considered chattel - or worse - ever since the patriarchal religions became dominant. The Abrahamic religions - all three of them - are perhaps the worst today, but I believe Hinduism is right up there (bride burning, etc).

Think. Women are for men's pleasure. Says so in the Bible. Women should shut up. Women are to make babies. Women are worth less than men. Women brought sin into the world. Women brought death into the world. Pandora opened the box and Eve ate the apple. Women should be plain and not outshine the male. Etc. ad nauseam.

People are brought up on this, particularly in the more fundamentalist sects, and it HAS to have a poisonous influence on the thinking of both men and women, but more so on men.

So many posters are looking for the reasons why men have the attitudes they do, and I think we need look no further than religion.

There. I said it. I stuck the sacred cow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Researchers in England have made sperm from bone marrow.

Could it be that you boys could become redundant?

I would tread more lightly if it were me.

L O L

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.....about how women should become more "thick-skinned" and learn how to protect themselves, but not much said about the actual inappropriateness of cyberstalking or other manifestations of online "misogyny", and what steps we might take to limit such behavior in the first place.

I wonder, do any of these male bloggers have sons? What would they do if they caught their male offspring making these sorts of comments online?

I do have a son, and I know what I would do. Probably best not to publicize it here on this thread, but it wouldn't be pretty. And that would apply, by the way, whether or not he was stalking or threatening a female OR a male correspondent.

Seems when I grew up, part of being a man involved learning to take responsibility PUBLICLY for any controversial statements you made - meaning that if you chose to insult someone, or make a sexual comment, you did so in the person's physical presence and took the consequences head on, so to speak - or "face on", I suppose, in the case of failed pass at a woman - rather than hiding like a weenie behind some figurative cyber-fence.

Men who make these types of comments from the anonymity of cyberspace strike me as moral cowards, frankly. My son will not grow up to be that kind of man. Hopefully I'm not the only father who feels that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women worried about stalking should visit www.ncvc.org/src/main.aspx?dbID=DB_Cyberstalking814.

The link will take them to the "Stalking Resource Center" on a website maintained by the National Center for Victims of Crime (NCVC).

For example, a subject box titled “Help for Victims” will access the following information:

Brochure for Victims
Questions and Answers
Safety Plan Guidelines
Stalking Incident and Behavior Log
Cyberstalking
Emily Spence-Diehl's Handbook for Stalking

Any woman concerned about being victimized (which all ladies should be) who DOESN’T go to the NCVC website and study the content is not serious about stalking and should stop commenting about it on AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who are you and just what's your damage? Your devotion, no, frightening compulsion to serially post on this and any thread that even vaguely refers to women is obviously the result of waaaaay too much time on your hands. It's just icing on the cake if you can remind everyone who the 3 primary misogynists are on Alternet, right? It's pretty ironic that you rabidly point to men as misogynists when you're cleary a disturbed man-hater in your own regard.

Ever thought about taking up fly fishing or rock climbing? Have you been on a date since the Clinton administration? Can you even get a date? Do you frequently scare men when you say things like: "Can I put this mask in the likeness of my ex-husband's face on you and beat you half to death with a claw hammer?", or "Did you know that men are 75% more likely to molest their pets than women according to my 'Why Women Are Better Than Men' factoid calendar?". I think all women harbor some anger towards men, myself included, but you have clearly crossed over to the darkside . . .

Your thinly veiled misandry is hanging out again. You made at least 30 posts on this thread alone, and for you, that's just getting warmed up. Do you have a job, friends, pets? I suggest you find some because the man or men that hurt you are clearly still getting the best of you . . . . Time to let go! Now, pack a lunch, head out to the mountains or nearest lake and get some sun on your face, will ya?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't think Alternet should have posted this article. I am a radical feminist, as well as a frequent visitor at Feministing, and I am completely disgusted and outraged over the abusive verbal attacks on female bloggers. But every time this subject comes up, everyone comes out of the cracks to argue over this, with the same tired arguments, on every side of the issue. It's obnoxious and ineffective. Yeah, dialogue and discourse is awesome, I know. But it just seems that a ton of people comment (who don't ever comment on non-race, non-sex, non-polarizing--like 9/11--articles) purely to make one-sentence-long trite or inflammatory points. I don't think we ever accomplish anything on these articles. Everyone just talks over and over about how she's right, and there doesn't seem to be any true dialogue, just people talking AT each other.

It seems pointless to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who "lauds" sexual harassment except sexual harassers? Why must progressive commentators so frequently take a reasonable gripe and then turn it into "the sky is falling"?

I have nothing against the war of the sexes, so long as it is a fair fight. Unfortunately, too few of us know how to fight fairly. And when posting anonymously, and not subject to shame for being gross, all's unfair.

For bloggers to take insults seriously makes me wonder what they think blogging is all about. Is it that complaints about jerky comments on blogs are a case of "the lady who doth protest too much"? Now, you have heard that old canard before right? And it's been around a long time, right? And shouldn't that be taken as an indication that it's been around for a long time because we find it a helpful cliche?

If so, what the h3ll is AlterNet doing giving space to such vapidity?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"How the Web Became a Male-bashing Paradise."

Subtitle: "The Man-haters took over on February 14, 2007."

Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What an idiot, everyone hates lawyers.
Male or female your despised equally.

Male or female chauvinism isn't popular.

Deal with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If online harrassment is your biggest problem, you're spending way too much time on the computer.
It feels like most of this article was kinda just made up, truthiness style. Who conducted a study on "threatening threads when it was a woman"? If you're going to quote studys and data, then back it up with a works cited page. You couldn't graduate high school without making one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here is a comment I cross-posted at Tapped:

http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/04/post_3425.html

Marc said:

"Sierra received email messages that she perceived
as death threats."

Here is her post where she quotes the death threats.
I would think that anyone with a passing familiarity
with the English language would realize that the
reason she *perceived* them as death was because
they actually were death threats.

http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/
2007/03/as_i_type_this_.html

Marc said:

"And she then blamed a number of people associated
with the website in question - naming names - even
though it turned out that they had nothing to do
with the posts in question."

Well actually they very much did have a lot
to do with what happened.

Note Chris Locke started the meankids.org blog
as a forum for attacking people he didn't like.

Normally if someone has a blog and someone
posts comments to it that are death threats,
the blog administrator takes them down, and
hopefully calls the police.

This is exactly what Sierra did when someone
(or someones) posted death threats to her blog.

Chris Locke did not do so. A number of comments
threatening death to Sierra were allowed to
stand on his meankids.org blog. It wasn't until
later that Sierra even found out about these
death threats posted on Locke's blog. When she
did find out, she contacted Locke and complained
bitterly. Locke did not want to "censor" the
death threatener so instead he decided to take
down the meankids blog. Then that very same day
he put up another blog unclebobism.wordpress.com.
Guess what happened then, more death threats
directed towards Sierra were posted in comments.
Again, it wasn't until she found out about these
new death threats and complained that he took
down the second blog.

So no, Locke is not some innocent bystander, he
very much aided and abetted the death threatener(s)
by providing a platform for them to spew their
violent tendencies.

This would be like someone buying a classified
ad in a newspaper that consisted of death threats.
If the newspaper was stupid enough to publish
this ad, it should face repercussions.

Locke has now promised Sierra that he would
cooperate with police in finding out who
posted the death threats to his blogs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is talk of a new Internet system (not Intenet 2) that will take shape in about 10 to 15 years and from what I've read about it, no one will be able to make a death without blowing his cover. Hopefully people will become more polite knowing they cannot hide their identity or even where they live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In traffic I've had people copy my license plate number down and then tell me they were going to find me and kill me. Since I'm single, mostly alone, and an easy target, I've been accused by women and men of being all kinds of things, won't go into it here. To be completely honest I think we have an epidemic of people in this country who WANT to be victimized. If you are afraid, buy a handgun, and learn how to use it, do what you have to in order to protect yourself. If your a woman you'll likely get more leniancy than a man ever would when it comes to protecting yourself. If you think America is some kind of free perfect democratized kind of place to live then turn on your TV, watch it some, and think about it some more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm male. I spent about ten years as a regular poster, under my real name, on the major Usenet political groups. If I had a dollar for every time somebody hurled a crude personal insult at me -- more often than not questioning my sexuality -- I'd be a wealthy man.

On a few occasions, I had nutcases dig up and post my personal information. I dealt with it by forwarding the posts and e-mails to their ISPs and having their accounts pulled. One particularly objectionable post, in which the person announced his intentions to track me down and decapitate me, I sent to the FBI. Never heard from him again.

But most of the insults, although often vile, fell short of outright criminality. People in particular took issue with the fact that I was a) liberal and b) a university student. The overall gist of the insults might be summarized as "faggot-pinko-commie-mama's-boy-professional-student traitor!!!!"

And the insults, almost without exception, seemed to originate from far-right-wing males, men who would in later years become the core demographic of Free Republic and Little Green Footballs, as well as the major constituency of George W. Bush. It is not universal male dislike of women, or misogynistic Western civilization, or whatever, which is behind these attacks on women. It is these obsessive, fascist cretins, whose numbers and influence have grown appallingly since I first started encountering them on the Usenet in the early 1990s.

And trust me, they will go after other men just as viciously as they will go after women. The garbage they spew at women might superficially be different, since the culture of pornography (to which they seem to be disproportionately addicted) offers some easy ready-made insults, but the underlying irrational hatred is exactly they same. Women are being treated no worse than the sane men who've long dealt with these scumbags.

Get used to it. We did.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you're a woman and you're worried about problems like this there are at least 3 things you can do to make someone think twice about acting so childish:

Post pics of yourself holding and shooting handguns and automatic weapons. This sends the message that you're skilled and armed. If you live in NYC or the like where such things are apparently banned, you should vote against gun control every chance you get because now you are in one of those situations where gun control fails miserably in protecting you.

Put a link to the NRA website on your blog. Sends the message that you've handled guns a long time and wouldn't think twice about pulling the trigger.

Ban anonymous posting. This one should have been followed from the beginning. They don't have to use real names but their email address should validate and their IP address should not originate from a proxy. One could also simply moderate all posting. If the little twerps don't get their 15 seconds of fame, they'll move on and ignore you like all the rest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There are money, sex and power but the greatest of these is sex (love according to Paul, that man's man who toppled the Roman empire). All is fair in love and war but love will eventually win. Topics like this reach no satisfying conclusion because it is a red herring used as a decoy. The fact is that in nature there is no absolute equality. The game of life is ever so slightly rigged in favor of love, which is primarily a womam's virtue. Pushing an agenda of equality is a strategy to protect the special interests of patriarchy. The CIA is reported to have funded Ms. Magazine in order to get more womem into the workforce so they could be taxed and the children into daycare so they could be indoctrinated. The true natural facts are that womem are inherently superior to men, and until that fact is acknowledged this neverending phony war will proceed. It is a political strategy perpetuated by the present day patriarchs. The Red Brown Blue party acknowledges the superiority of womem without denigrating the important role men have as servants of earth, womem and children. Men who acknowledge the facts of nature are not liberal man or womam haters with severe psychological pathologies but ontological realists. RBB advocates for The Lover Government, a womam based utopia with practical potential for uncovering the true facts about the real world. Like Beck, I'm having fun. I'm also deadly serious. Hate is unrequited love, and judging from the comments, there are many frustrated lovers in our midst.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have this to say to misogynists and hate mongers - the pathetic little creatures who, apparently, feel good when they can criticize, malign and abuse others (especially women): Clean up your own backyard! I'm sure that's the work of a lifetime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So she didn't do a speaking engagement because of what someone wrote about her in some emails?
Who cares what some angry little prepubescent sh-t is saying about you?
I've played computer games online where I've been cussed out, had my sexual orientation question, and my life threatened by various colorful means. Many times over voip which is far more personal than an anonymous email. But did I quit the game, run crying to my room, and lock the door afraid to come out? God no. I normally give a response like 'Your threat might carry more weight when you can grow some hair on your balls' (That really pisses them off ;) and then I mute them, block them, ignore them, or whatever.
Maybe instead of letting them influence her life she should just 'suck it up' (or 'man up' might be appropriate here) and ignore them like the rest of us do.

For example 'I plan to rape and suffocate every women in this thread if they go to work tomorrow'
Oh gods no! You've been threatened over the internet! Maybe you should all stay home tomorrow or the big scary man from the internet might come and get you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you don't buy it or listen to, the abusive rap crap that de-humanizes will disappear. No market = no money = no more!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As one poster said they must be naive, i must echo that.
As an alternet junkie i am a devout believer in free speech no matter how stupid or obnoxious. i do NOT want government intervention into what people can say or not say.

BUT --- BUT --- TERRIFYING SOMEONE FROM THE SAFETY OF TOTAL ANONYMITY IS WRONG!

Perhaps a Federal Law such as the one governing Pedophilia on the net would help. Personal threats should break the shield of anonymity and bring about serious penalties. DAMN, I HATE THAT. But to frighten a person into hiding whether physically or just from the net monsters must not be condoned even under the guise of free speech.

As for the make up of the harrasers, it seems that even women are indulging. Men, i can understand. After all there is a high percentage of males that suffer from inferiority and wish to vent their anger on someone that can't fight back. This is not a complex, because they are really inferior. These are males, not men. Real Men don't feel the need to act out their machismo.
i am going to re read this article and find some blogs or organisations that are working to combat this evil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A woman will cease to be shy if she wants to by letting a man massage her nude body from head to toe on both front and back side. This way she will gain the confidence that men are not going to get sexual gratification by looking at her body. Not many men will be willing to do it because their minds will get messed up. I'd like to accept the challenge of massaging a serious woman who wants to loose her inhibition. I can be reached at fakir005@aim.com/ Please write Massage in Subject line because I get a lot of junk mail. I've experience in massaging only women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I acknowledge this problem, and thank the author for doing a public service in pointing it out.

I also acknowledge the internet for bringing people's honest feelings out - including the problematic ones. The internet's promise is not a false one - its just not going to come to fruition without work. Whats been presented is another layer in a complex ongoing cultural transformation. It is an opportunity.

The real solution to assholes is not to prevent them from speaking their minds. the answer is going to take yet more change on the part of all of us.

One part of the equation that must change:
' "How many.. threats does it take to make women want to lay low? Not many," she says.'

Assholes - male and female- will not change their tune by themselves. Women must become ready to evaluate risk, not take bad physical chances, but stand their ground, to face down the wall of idiots over and over, even when outnumbered.

It is the only way.

Looking to a paternalistic -or even maternalistic - power structure for protection at all times is not going to change the status quo. (of course, where an actual crime has been committed, let the law take its course, and where there is real physical danger, take appropriate steps).

For better or worse, shrinking and hiding signals weakness, lack of conviction, lack of confidence in ones own values. This isn't going to change.
..and it probably shouldn't change. It is one valid measure of the practicality of an idea. If an idea isn't worth standing up for, then why should anyone take it seriously?

Differences between traditional male and female communication isn't just aesthetic - it was shaped by the purposes to which communication was put.
Take two tones, for example: 1) You're dealing with an infant, redirecting focus and teaching. 2) On a jobsite, you see 30 feet away a 600-lb beam falling toward someone's head.
These two kinds of situations require very diferent tones. Is either tone inappropriate, in its original context?
This is just one small example of the origins of different communication styles that have become associated with male an female.

We are now in mid-transformation from a dual-parallel-culture (with dual parallel sub-languages) to something else, which may end up as a single culture with three sub-languages - the two older ones (which are still needed) plus a new still-forming one, with some characteristics of each.

That transformation is by no means complete. It will only come from people meeting bravely and continually, and hashing it out over time. In the midst of this chaos, we will continue to encounter friends and foes, the full range of personalities, people who are equally clueless about what the new rules are supposed to be.

One feature of the New Hybrid Culture thats becoming clear: everyone will have to adopt that deceptively simple Boy Scouts' motto: be prepared.

And remember: not all of the opposition to the new culture is coming from men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Has anyone considered using the new IMBRA law as a precedent to regulating men's communication on blogs and the Internet in general? That is exactly what IMBRA does and it has been upheld by a federal judge. IMBRA does not permit American men to communicate, by email or any other means, with foreign women (can't even say "hello") unless he completes a lengthy form and submits very personal background information. Then she must (even if she does not want to) read it and sign that she read it and send it back before he can send her an email.

So if IMBRA can set conditions for speech just to say "hi" to someone in a friendly way, why can't there be a law that somehow restricts men from making unfriendly and threatening communication on blogs?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]