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]