Last week on Comment is Free Rowenna Davis wrote about how men’s voices still seem to be dominating online spaces. This week, Joanna Geary and other participants at SXSW Interactive have been reporting back on panel discussions that have taken place there with titles like Why is Professional Blogging Bloodsport for Women? and That’s Not My Name: Beating Down Online Misogyny. And yet despite the fact that numerous female bloggers have now spoken up about the amounts of abuse and harassment they’ve experienced in the blogosphere, there are still those who refuse to acknowledge that online misogyny even exists, or that women, particularly those of us who identify as feminists, receive way more than our fair share of abuse and vitriol when we venture into cyberspace.
Now admittedly, while I was away last week there were some pretty intemperate discussions taking place on this blog; tempers flared, things got a bit heated, and at one point I had to step in and remind people about my comment policy. However, I have to say, after reading through the comments on the tackling violence against women thread, I was surprised to see some posters claiming that Polly’s comment to AllyF was one of the nastiest, most shocking things they’d ever read online, and other posters arguing that radical feminist contributors were among the most abusive and aggressive they’d ever encountered.
Seriously?
At one point JayReilly even saw fit to declare that Comment is Free has no “abusive nutters”, and gave the impression that everything over on CiF is lovely and friendly and all we ever do over there is engage each other in stimulating, respectful, intellectual debate.
Well I’ve got news for Jay. He may take issue with the way the CiF moderation team works sometimes, but there’s a reason they’re employed, and it’s not just to piss him and his mates off.
I’ve been writing for CiF for nearly two years now, and as some of you are probably aware, in that time there have been a significant number of comments deleted from my threads. What people don’t know is that, nerdy librarian that I am, I actually managed to copy down some of those comments before they disappeared. Let’s just say I had a feeling they might come in handy one day.
So here, for your delectation, is a selection from the contents of what I like to call my “Nasty CiF” file:
“Cath-suck on my phat one, bitch”
“Why don’t you take the piss out of Eid or Ramadan, let’s see how well that goes down with your editors, eh? Then again, what other point of view should we expect from a filthy lesbian?”
“Go fuck yourself, pervert”
“You arrogant drone”
“I don’t look at Cath Elliot and read her rantings and exactly think “mummy”. And I doubt many men would look at her and listen to her and think ‘I want that woman to be the mother of my children’.”
“Cath Elliot: You should be ashamed of yourself for this article.. just what is your fucking hang up about men? Get your fuckin head together and stop trying to be sensationalist”
“Slightly off topic, but judging by the photo at the top, Cath Elliott is one of the ugliest women I have ever been unfortunate to witness.”
“what is truly annihilating the family is misandrist feminist media bitches like you”
“If there is a more stupid and pointless woman than Cath Elliot on the planet she should get in touch with the Guardian”
“I disagree, you ugly boring sac of pus.”
“I presume that is the picture of the dog at the top of the page? It is certainly very ugly and I would suggest the best thing would be to put the sock over its head.”
“Isn’t it amazing that women who are the most vocal abortion rights activists are L E S B I A N S. Irony at its finest.”
“From the way she demonizes men I shouldn’t be surprised to learn that Ms Elliott is a lesbian. Not that there’s anything wrong with that in itself. Merely that it goes a long way to explain such anti-male vitriol.”
“I find it highly unlikely that anyone has whistled at you for quite some time Cath, unless it was getting you to heel.”
“I had to check the date on this article; maybe I had fallen into a time warp. Has this tedious little lesbian been sleeping under a stone since 1971? Just move on, it’s not the least bit interesting any more. And looking at her picture, every self-respecting man will avert their gaze when passing her in the street. For heaven’s sake, don’t take your clothes off.”
“I can only imagine that ‘man’ that wolf-whistled at you and stared at your breasts was in fact a very butch lesbian. I mean, you’re hardly top-totty are you?”
“Seeing her picture I don’t expect the author of the article to be a frequent victim of harassment and whistling. Could that be her real problem?”
“I feel nagged into a homicidal rage just by reading your articles!”
“Utter garbage, Cath Elliott. Next you’ll be screaming that no-one (male, that is) has any right to disagree with you. That is, after all, your sexist agenda of control, manipulation and lesbian pro-homosexual misandry….You are merely pandering to your own hypocritical man-hating agenda. Thus it is you who is the abuser and you simply distort the abuse of women for your own perceived benefit. Like (male) politicians, you care nothing about (heterosexual) women in society, in effect……Thus you are manufacturing and touting a lie to cater to your own intended fringe group’s infiltration of society and dishonestly promoting homosexuality as a mainstream lifestyle. .”
“I am a frank person. I think your homosexuality makes you think funny. I know you have to be very careful about discussing reality these days, but homosexuality will alter the thinking of a human being from normal straight thinking to other kinds of mixed up thinking. It is my opinion you have these extreme reactions and radical opinions because you don’t think straight because you are homosexual. I am not trying to be mean or hurtful. I am trying to be factual and diagnose you like a doctor. Please don’t take what I say in a negative way.”
“Why is it always ugly women that are the strongest feminists?”
“keep your nasty, censorious, smug moral self righteousness to yourself and mind your own fucking business.”
“One of the most virulent male-hating feminists in the mass media. And if Cath Elliott doesn’t like it, perhaps she had better stop writing articles that spew out such hatred. Otherwise she must expect to have some of us on her back for as long as it takes to knock some sense into that thick skull”
In addition to these examples I’ve also had my suitability to be a parent called into question, and been accused of being too ugly for any man to want to rape.
Just to be clear, I’m not citing these examples in order to claim any kind of victim status, and I’m most certainly not trying to say that CiF or other online forums are too scary or intimidating for women to enter. I love being a part of CiF (most of the time), I only wish more feminist women would comment on there. No, I’m just trying to show that despite the blinkers JayReilly and other recent commenters here seem to be wearing, abuse and misogyny (and homophobia) are rife on the Internet, including on well-moderated popular newspaper sites like the Guardian’s Comment is Free.
In my view the only way we’re ever going to ensure that this kind of hate is marginalised, as it should be, is by making our voices louder, outnumbering the haters and the abusers and making sure our arguments and our points of view get a fair hearing. And while I’m a firm advocate of safe spaces for women, and believe that feminist blogs have every right to refuse to publish misogynist anti-woman comments, I don’t believe that retreating into women-only spaces and then refusing to engage outside of those places is the answer.
Which is why I try to do a bit of both.
Interestingly, when I’ve written about this issue for CiF in the past, a lot of the comments I got back were along the lines of “If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen”, and I see that Rowenna Davis has received similar on her comment thread. Would that be from the very same posters who came on here last week and decided they’d never comment here again because some of the nasty feminists were so vitriolic their delicate egos couldn’t handle it?
Hmmm……I wonder.
Incidentally, I’m not defending some of the comments that have been made on this blog in recent weeks, and I would ask again that everyone have a look at the comment policy and try in future to refrain from personal abuse; but what I am saying is that if the blokes posting here think those comments are bad, they might want to spend some time posting elsewhere as feminist women, and see what sort of responses they get then.
‘Cos believe me, they ain’t seen nothing yet.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
I don’t bother looking at or reading comment threads on CiF any more because they always degenerate into ad hominem abuse of the writer, whatever their gender. But only in the articles by women does it always seem to come down to looks…
Those hateful comments wouldn’t hurt them though, even if they were pretending to be feminists though. They still wouldn’t be experiencing what it’s like to be female on the end of that never-ending tirade of hatred from men. At the root of this abuse is male violence against women – what is used time and time again to silence and terrorise us. Like I said, AllyF and his ilk can throw their weight around because if the fear they know has been ingrained into women through other men’s violence. All the verbal abuse is backed up by rapes and violence and memories of the same even if it isn’t them doing it themselves, (mind you I have my suspicions about the guy calling for fourteen year old girls to be prostitutes).
It’s good you don’t feel victimised over at CiF Cath, but a lot of women do. I certainly do. That doesn’t make me a weak person who can’t stand up to the haters, I do go there every now and then to say my piece – the point is that what they are doing is an abuse of power. I used to comment on the Guardian Talkboards until I got run of by the misogynists (including the moderators who lied about how many times I’d been given a warning in order to boot me off). Life is just too short to accept that kind of level of abuse. There’s enough of it in real life without subjecting yourself to it on the internet.
We’re not on a level playing field. Men coming over here and being abusive about feminists and feminism and denying the existence of male violence against women are not in the same place as women getting pissed off at the same thing and working to challenge it.
Actually the word that came into my head last night when I was thinking about the abuse over the weekend here and at CiF was “evil”. That’ll probably send everybody into a fit of the vapours using a word as strong as that. But it certainly fits some of the things I’ve read here and now that long list of vile abuse that’s been directed at you. Certainly if someone said those things to you over the phone or in the street they’d probably be done for harassment or breach of the peace. On the Guardian though they just get their comment deleted and they are allowed to post again.
I think the way to stop that kind of hate at the Guardian is to ban the people dishing out the abuse. Saying that the only way to deal with it is to accept it and just try and outnumber them is a mistake. We don’t say the only way to deal with criminals in our society is to outnumber those committing crimes. We challenge their behaviour and deal with it. I’m not putting myself in a position where vicious misogynists can take the opportunity to vent their hatred at me, I don’t see why I should. It’s the misoynist’s behaviour that needs to be dealt with.
Great post, Cath.
I do post on the comments threads on CiF as a feminist for just becasue I’m damned if I’m going to let the misogynists have all the say and it’s very good to know that there’s others out there doing it as well.
Glad you’re not alone too, Jo, but I won’t be joining you until I have radically more spoons. Sorry.
Most of those are pretty vile, but I do rather like “arrogant drone”, and wish someone would apply it to me. I think the ‘best’ CiF comment directed at me was the suggestion that I might be Julie Burchill’s boyfriend.
I get all this stuff too – and I know other women who have dropped out of blogging regularly because of this abuse.
Hi Cath
You’re right that is some appalling abuse you have suffered. But i can still say with complete sincerity that in terms of posters comments to each other, i have never seen anything as unpleasant as the suggestion that a man just consoles his traumatised girlfriend so he can ‘keep on shagging her’. The things you quote are hardly typical CIF posts are they. You attract more idiots than most, sadly, but i am talking about the way posters engage with each other. On CIF there is usually at least attempt at debate – that seems lacking here. Adhoms seem the main game.
Interesting to note as well Cath that the main body of your response is an attack on me and some of the most shameful posts to have come up on CIF (against you) and have included just a token footnote about the vitriolic smears of your acolytes.
You can rail at me all you like Cath, every other CIFfer that came over here has said exactly the same thing, its not just nasty MRAs, the fems too.
Those comments are indeed horrible and unacceptable, and I would have no desire to engage with the people who made them. But the existence of such people in the world and online is no reason to rush to join their ranks. And in that one single comment, Polly became one of those people. If that’s the standard she wants to judge herself by – “some other people are at least as nasty as me” – then I’d feel slightly sad for her, and humbly suggest she aims a little higher in life.
Delphyne – I don’t mean this in a bad way, but I don’t really understand. My opinion on that thread, similarly to another I was more directly involved in, was that people began to be called misogynists for disagreeing (and very politely at first) with a certain viewpoint. I didn’t see anything resembling hatred of women in general, although I did see (and increasingly feel) a small amount of dislike for certain women posting, purely on the basis of what they said. Which isn’t the same thing. It isn’t misogynist to think Polly said something stupid.
Are there any posts you could point to that illustrate what you thought was ‘evil’? I genuinely want to understand your perspective. I wouldn’t use that word, but the closest I can see is Polly’s comment, because it looks to me like she exploited real-world suffering deliberately to score a cheap point and hurt someone’s feelings, and simply because they disagreed with her.
“Which is why I try to do a bit of both.”
Judging by the rarity of MsWomans appearances on CIF it seems you enjoy this place rather more. Is that the case?
Incidentally, with online stuff, I try my best to assume good faith with people. I subscribe to this theory (image, contains bad language):
No hard feelings if this gets deleted, by the way…
Lol! I hadn’t realised I was expected to account to you for my whereabouts Jay.
Was just a question Cath, not an interrogation. I’ll take that as a yes.
Cath – That’s a horrible list, and some of the CiF abuse you encounter which isn’t deleted is also pretty bad. Remember reading ‘too ugly to be raped’, presumably before deleted, and flinching.
Don’t wish to deny the abuse and vitriol you or others have experienced online. It can’t be completely separated from a mark of online ‘debate’ in general: part of that spectrum from cheap points-scoring to nastier stuff. Doesn’t mean there can’t be particularities when it comes to self-identifying (or identified by others as) feminists.
But there’s still a problem. All the other excesses and nastiness of the online world doesn’t efface the blunt fact that the blog here was distressingly vitriolic at times, and also frightfully manichaean. The point is not whether or not this statistically outweighs other vitriolic contexts. It was, for me anyway, alarming for a slightly different reason.
Maybe here’s an example. AllyF – someone I enjoy reading, who is thoughtful, humane, funny and yet I often disagree with – raised two broader questions about domestic violence:
(1) the existence of female on male, female on female and male on male violence;
(2) the broader image and reality of violence in society.
In themselves, neither of these means being complacent or negligent or ignorant about male-female domestic violence. I’d go further: thinking about (1) and (2) is compatible with retaining a notion of domestic violence as a ‘gendered’ phenomenon. (Could it even solidify this point? E.g. the ‘shock’ of a husband-beater partly stems from how it goes against the ‘script’). Not sure, but maybe AllyF didn’t mean it to be quite so compatible. Even if we took it as a critique of a ‘gendered’ notion of domestic violence, that doesn’t automatically render it an attack, or certainly not an outrageous or apologetic or ‘patriarchal’ attack. And addressing the questions he raises might even provide resources for clarifying or elaborating ‘gendered’ notions of domestic violence.
(Incidentally, I understand a ‘gendered’ account of domestic violence not to mean simply that the statistic of perpetrators are more likely to be male. Rather, it’s to do with the images, representations, the ‘script’ and so on).
Of course, both points could be made in a cheap (and actually non-sequitur) way, as if to say, ‘what are you banging on about these men beating women, it’s not an issue cos some women beat men too’. But I just can’t see AllyF as trying to do that.
There emerged a sad sight: not just vitriol, but a context in which there was little scope for reflecting on these questions, for taking people’s points, even where we disagree with them, at their strongest points. There was a distinctive lack of charity. And – sorry, this is one of my hobby-horses – charity is not simply a nicety, but an intellectual virtue. At a broad level – and silly points about, say, Hitler aside – you can’t refute something without making some attempt to understand it. Here’s the catch with charity: it doesn’t work if we say, ‘well, s/he’s not doing it’. One has to make the leap when no one else is.
Why alarming? Well, I assume that everyone involved takes issues of domestic violence seriously. They are not blase about it. I strongly imagine kizbot does. And though I’ve only recently online-met Montana, her background gives her concrete experience which someone like me just doesn’t have. And yet, even among such a group of people, dialogue degenerated into competing monologues.
Two disclaimers: don’t mean this in a holier than thou sense. I’ve been an agent of degeneration in all sorts of contexts.
And though I’m a wanderer from CiF, and sort of ‘know’ (in the online rather than interpersonal, let alone biblical, sense) some of the Ciffers, we hardly form a coherent group when it comes to thoughts on this or that. I only mention Ciffers by name, not to be ‘protective’ or ‘loyal’, but simply because I’m familiar with them.
I’ve disagreed and argued, maybe even tediously, with JayR and AllyF before. Ditto with you. But I don’t find the experience has to be so confrontational and deaf, even where there is radical disagreement. There have been some ‘beautiful disagreements’.
And here’s where I’m cautious about the value of
“In my view the only way we’re ever going to ensure that this kind of hate is marginalised, as it should be, is by making our voices louder, outnumbering the haters and the abusers and making sure our arguments and our points of view get a fair hearing.”
Sure. Sometimes you have to shout to be heard. Granted. But sometimes the shouting is premature. Online discussion can be an awful prism, sometimes, where disagreement looks like abuse. (This is not, again, to deny the most horrid abuse does occur). But its fosters antagonistic ways of discussing things. This imperils, rather than promotes, giving arguments “a fair hearing”. And that’s how I’d describe the thread – sheesh, this must sound ponderous arrogant (I restress that I can bore you with a list of my internet crimes of vitriol and deafness) – through a sequence which can’t just be tagged on one person, it became a context in which a fair hearing just wasn’t possible. A mighty shame, given what was being discussed.
delphyne
No, not at all, and I hope I didn’t give the impression that that’s what I thought: I can perfectly understand why some women choose not to comment over there. I do still think however that getting more women to comment would help redress the current imbalance.
I agree, and I think some of the posters who posted those comments actually were banned.
Yes, I can understand this, and I think a lot of women share your view.
Jay
Really? If you look around the site a bit more you’ll see we’ve had some cracking debates on here. Well I think so anyway.
Jay
What attack? All I did was quote you and say why I thought you were wrong. That’s not an attack ffs, and neither is it me railing at you.
As for my absence from CiF, that’s just a temporary thing. I was away from home for practically all of last week, and I’m off again tomorrow for a few days. But I now have some smart new technology, so I should be able to keep up with things a bit better than I have been.
By the way,
“And yet, even among such a group of people, dialogue degenerated into competing monologues.”
I meant that a collection of people here, including kizbot and montana, and others I’m not familiar with – all of whom take seriously this issue – there was little possibility and room for real discussion. I don’t have this or that person specifically in mind, as if they crowded everyone else out: rather, the context was such that real discussion just wasn’t possible.
By the way, the comment about AllyF was also rather horrid. I can’t even remember who made it, and I’ve thrown out all sorts of things myself. Something’s gone wrong if we try to work out whether it was a 9.5 or really just a 9 on the horrid comment index.
Polly told a truth, an inconvenient truth, but one that many women are aware of. It’s just against the unwritten patriarchal law to talk about this stuff – same as pointing out that it is men who are responsible for the majority of violence against women and men who should be answerable for it. We need to stop talking about women’s victimisation and start talking about the victimisers, because they are amongst us.
That’s why Polly is being attacked now by the AllyF fanclub. It’s so funny to see this response from the CIF people of all people, who use hate and abuse as rhetorical tools, yet get a fit of the vapours if someone remotely challenges one of them. The women popping over to give him character references have been pretty funny too. And no, I’m not calling you collaborators, but seriously ask yourself how often you see that dynamic played out – someone is challenged about their behaviour on a thread on the internet and apparently needs their friends and relations to come and join in just to tell the challengers off and provide character references for their good name? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it.
Cath
My point is that i played a rather minor part in the row, but was heavily featured in your article in a “Jay was wrong about this too” tone throughout.
I’ll say something else Cath. The things you quote were deleted, CIF deemed them too vile to keep up. Im sure if there had been polls then most ciffers would have supported the deletion of every one of those comments because people dont like to see that sort of thing on CIF. Yet Pollys comment to Ally, just supported above by delphyne, hasnt been deleted, you have chosen not to. So presumably you dont think Pollys comment was worthy of deletion otherwise you would have, as you have moderated some other comments.
So just to confirm, Cath, was Pollys comment to Ally acceptable to you?
@delphyne
Dunno if that was with me in mind. If not, apologies.
If so, I must have epileptically zoned out and lost all memory during my “fit of the vapours”.
Not interested in character references – in discussing whether AllyF is a sleight of hand legislator of unwritten patriarchal laws or a cuddly nice guy. We’ve not discussed at huge length online, but I’m sure AllyF would find it odd if I’m supposed to be the honorary secretary of the “AllyF fanclub”.
Instead, am interested in why discussion of domestic violence among people who – for all I can see – share your desire that “men who are responsible for the majority of violence against women and men who should be answerable for it” turned out the way it did.
Genuinely interested in your thoughts.
How can gendered notions of ‘domestic violence’ interact with non-male perpetrated violence, or with broader patterns of violence in society? Is this an illegitimate question in itself? Is it so easily demasked as an attempt to stifle holding those (men) accountable for what they do?
And on the original blog, I asked how best to explain the way that feminist discourse fails to register with large numbers of women. It wasn’t – to reiterate – asked in a loaded way. This clearly is the case. It’s interesting to ask why this might be so.
Two possible routes, which I doubt can do all the work by themselves. First, ‘internalised patriarchy’ or something along those lines. Second, an unwillingness to adopt what is perceived as, for want of a better phrase, an excessive ‘hermeneutic of suspicion’ when it comes to men.
Thanks for explaining Cath, sorry if I was getting the wrong end of the stick.
I was really responding to this:
“and I’m most certainly not trying to say that CiF or other online forums are too scary or intimidating for women to enter”
Actually they are. There are lots and lots of women, including me who never want to put themselves in the line of fire of that kind of bigotry and hate because it is *painful*. And the bigotry and hate is designed to do exactly that – to silence women and frighten them away. For whatever reason the Guardian has decided to let the lowest common denominator dictate the tone in the comment threads, and those forums, despite the fact that there are some wonderful commenters still there, are pretty much a cesspit.
People who can tolerate the pain of that abuse and misogyny and denial of women’s experiences – well good for them, but I’d say there are places on the internet that aren’t worth it and CIF is one of them. I’m pretty dismayed too that some of them are clearly trying to import their misogynistic culture into comments over here – you know things like men feeling quite free to say that 14 year old girls should be able to be prostituted, or men completely denying the gendered nature of violence against women.
Sorry, you seem to be getting it from both sides here.
Oops. Just in case anything is read into it, I didn’t mean to inverted comma ‘domestic violence’ as if drawing attention to a contested category.
I hadn’t even noticed you ChooChoo. Just so you know I don’t come here to talk to CIF misogynistic men. If I wanted to do that I’d comment at CIF itself. So there’s not much point in addressing any comments to me because after this I won’t be responding.
“I hadn’t even noticed you ChooChoo. Just so you know I don’t come here to talk to CIF misogynistic men. If I wanted to do that I’d comment at CIF itself. So there’s not much point in addressing any comments to me because after this I won’t be responding.”
I might be going mad but i think ChooChoo is female. But i admire your ‘wont respond’ stance, it has a certain mature dignity…
Delphyne –
But it simply isn’t against any law, unwritten or otherwise, to point out that men are responsible for the majority of violence, against both women and other men. I’d disagree that it’s up to men in general to answer for it, though. I’m willing to be convinced, but I can’t imagine a convincing argument that I am any more responsible for the actions of a man I’ve never met than you are.
But that’s by-the-by. Polly didn’t tell a truth, inconvenient or otherwise. As I said on the other thread, this bizarre comment was aimed at Ally but applies to me too. Is that really what you think about me? That my concern over a partner’s rape was because of the effect on our sex life? And that I only did my best to help her through it because I wanted a shag, and maybe to feel good about myself? I keep thinking I must have missed something obvious, and yet this utterly alien and hateful rubbish does appear to be what you’re saying.
@jayr – am a he.
Albeit one who’s never been a libertarian misogynist in favour of 14 year old female prostitution (my family’s from bombay and it’s my second city, but a city where child prostitution lurks frighteningly below the surface) nor one who is sceptical about notions of ‘gendered violence’.
Sorry ChooChoo, my mistake.
Cifer here. Won’t be making this a habit as
1) nowhere near well-read or intelligent enough to participate in such a high level of debate (not meant to sound facetious – being honest)
2) male
however
Polly’s comment was disgusting. I would draw your attention, Cath, to Jay’s point about CIF moderation. If Polly had said that on Comment is Free, it would have been deleted and a majority of posters would have supported the action. Frankly if it were an option, they would also support Polly being banned.
These comments threads have an air of “us versus them” about them. “us” being the regular posters who agree with every word the other ones say, and support Polly’s vile slander, and “them” being absolutely anyone who has the audacity to disagree with aggressive, radical feminism.
That’s fine, but don’t call it debate.
Just found this from AllyF on another site talking about his motivation for posting here in the first place. AllyF doesnt care about victims of domestic violence, he only cares about getting more comments on his blog and massaging his own ego. Unbelievable!
Comments policy prohibits me from saying what I really think about this charmer. This is what AllyF had to say
“Actually, in all the madness that ensued, I never really explained my motivation for posting on that thread in the first place.
It was quite shameless self-pluggery. Not because I particularly wanted to massage my own ego, but actually because I was trying to reel in some criticism onto the accompanying Cif thread I had that day.
One thing I find really quite frustrating about writing constructive criticism (as I see it) of feminist ideology, is that it usually goes completely unchallenged.
When I wrote about abuse of statistics, not a single one of the regular offenders or their supporters attempted to deny it or dispute it. They just ignored it.
When I write about DV or other ‘gender violence’ issues, it is incredibly rare that a proponent of gender-based theories will come on to argue the opposite case. (To her credit, on a previous DV thread, Cath made a spirited effort.)
On the one last week, it was only right at the end when ‘matfem’ appeared to challenge the research I quoted and then the thread was closed before I could properly reply – it was only at that point that I felt the debate was actually going somewhere useful.
Instead, I just end up in incredibly esoteric debates with sarka (bless her) about socio-cultural meta-narratives and stuff, which is all very well but doesn’t really get to the meat of the issue.
I actually want to debate these issues. I’d be delighted if some informed, intelligent rad-fem would do her best to demolish my argument, because it would make for a great thread and it’s quite likely that I would learn a lot – which I’m very happy to do.
Instead I get landed with Bitethehand’s relentless ad-hommery, which I struggle (and usually eventually fail) to keep patience with, and beyond that, an eerie, echoing silence from the radfem corner.
So last week, when the article went up, I dropped by Cath’s blog (and also the F-Word*) and left a comment and a link, basically just as bait. I’d hoped they might want to come by and argue with me (or at least insult me in an amusing fashion.)
What is becoming increasingly clear is that these people don’t actually want to debate the issues. They just *know* they are right and so anyone who tries to challenge the basis of their beliefs is clearly a raging misogynist who is not worth talking to”.
you can read more at
http://cifthreadrefugee.blogspot.com/2009/03/so-much-for-blokeosphere.html
I don’t find posting on CiF intimidating. I post on a range of subjects.
One of the things you have to accept when posting on CiF is that not everyone agrees with you. And the fact that they don’t agree with you doesn’t mean that they hate you.
Being disagreed with is no indication of hatred, but that list of abuse (which is a tiny portion of it) and all the nastiness and contempt the blokes have spat out here are a pretty clear indicator that lots of them do hate women Biskie. Why are you ignoring what people are actually talking about and pretending it’s disagreement that puts women off? You’re inventing an imaginary position to disagree with. I post in lots of places where people disagree with me – they certainly don’t spew the woman hatred that you see on CIF.
Ms Virago, thanks for posting that. So he was just trolling this blog for attention. Nice one AllyF, the fanclub must be so proud.
“AllyF doesnt care about victims of domestic violence, he only cares about getting more comments on his blog and massaging his own ego”
It is of course possible that AllyF both cares about victims of domestic violence AND wants people to debate the issue on his blog. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
delphyne –
Lots of them? I don’t think they are regular contributors to CiF. Of course some men hate women. I just don’t believe the majority do.
“and other posters arguing that radical feminist contributors were among the most abusive and aggressive they’d ever encountered.
Seriously?”
Taking the internet as a whole, of course not. Log onto any forum and you’ll generally find a few drive-by trolls who do nothing but spout mindless venom (as per Cath’s collection above). I would say, having read through the thread in question, that some of the feminist contributors to it are amongst the most abusive and aggressive *of those from whom I wouldn’t expect it*. By which I mean intelligent people, regardless of sex, who want to have a discussion and accomplish something useful.
That’s what’s so startling: it’s not so much the comment itself but the context in which it was delivered and the subsequent reaction (or lack of it in some quarters). And I’m pretty certain that an similarly unpleasant comment directed at a radical feminist – such as, say, those in Cath’s collection – would gain rather less support.
Anyway, you’ll run your house as you see fit and of course you’ve no need to listen to me; just seems a bit of a shame to celebrate an own goal.
Delphyne –
1) What nastiness and contempt has been spat out here? Seriously. Can you quote something? I’m beginning to think that the only criteria certain people here have for nastiness, contempt, misogyny and so on is ‘a man disagreed with me’.
2) The quote from Ally says nothing of the kind. It basically says he wants facts-based debate and discussion, and doesn’t get it. The previous thread goes some way to suggesting why.
3) In all seriousness – please have the courage of your convictions. Can you answer my question? Is that what you think about me, specifically, with regard to my experiences with a partner who was the victim of a rape? If you think it, why not say it out loud, unless it sounds bad?
I think I need to edit my earlier comment.
And the fact that they don’t agree with you doesn’t NECESSARILY mean that they hate you.
“Of course some men hate women. I just don’t believe the majority do.”
Biskei, saying that there are a lot of misogynists at CIF isn’t an argument that the majority of men hate women. Rabid misogynists are over-represented amongst the commenters at CIF.
Just to say that I love your columns on CIF. You look good and your writing is inspiring.
As much as it pains me to write this I will. There will be the backlash from sad bastards who love teenage girls and desire to fuck them. Because that’s what they are commenting against. The power to do as they please. I hate them too. And their comments are disgraceful. Perhaps you should do a thread, no holds barred, listing all those who made these obscene comments.
It’s always the same no matter what the sex of the writer, if anyone on CIF writes a column that in any way is perceived as ‘feminist’ they are attacked.
Keep up the good work.
THANK YOU for this post, Cath.
SOME people on Cif try to engage in debate on feminist articles. Unfortunately, for many, ‘debate’ seems to mean (especially on DV or rape threads):
‘Yes, women suffer, but so what? Men suffer too [sanctimoniously] Violence is WRONG.’
However, as Jennie Rigg said in her excellent comment on LC, if you really feel that violence against men is a problem (and it is, albeit on a smaller scale than violence against women), then do something about it, don’t try and hijack the attempts of women to question why violence against women is so prevalent.
I find it laughable that some of the people are crowing about how they get ‘debate’ at Cif and not here. How is it ‘debate’ when feminist articles are often not even read properly by many of the commenters? Joan Smith’s articles about the ‘violent partner database’, for example, were in no way suggesting that violence against men is non-existent. Yet many, many people continue to see what they want to see – including JayReilly, who I remember showing up to mention how homosexual relationships have high levels of DV too.
Er… fair enough, but JS wasn’t saying they don’t! She wasn’t trying to suggest all men are violent either, as many tried to imply – all she said was that it has been made very clear that sexual assaults against women can be got away with very easily. Judging by the Worboyes case, that’s pretty hard to argue with.
Comments on both ‘sides’ on that thread were pretty bad – I’m not going to rank them in some scale, but it is a bit rich for some of the male Cif-ers to complain about a few radfem comments when there are many, many more misogynist comments. I often give up hope when looking through comment threads on articles by women.
Even ones where the commenters agree with her often contain snarking along the lines of ‘I’m surprised the Guardian is putting up an article like this for once’ and ‘Be careful, your radical feminist colleagues will be along to slag you off any time now!’
And I don’t care for the ‘Oh, but Cif is anonymous, so you should expect a generally fairly abusive tone’ line (not that anyone here has pulled that yet). The commenters might be anonymous, but the writers aren’t. Male or female, judge them by their looks and your projected prejudices, and all you reveal is the worst mental poverty possible.
KJB –
I think the issue with CiF is that it’s widely-read. Therefore, it attracts its fair share of absolute wankers, but it’s usually possible to find a handful of people on either side of the debate who are willing to engage, discuss and argue the issue.
The thing about Joan Smith’s articles, and the whole ‘what about the men’ hijacking issue … I sympathise to a degree. If men care, they should set up their own groups – totally agree. But I think there’s a difference when it’s a proposed government policy we’re talking about. I don’t agree with the database, but assuming it goes ahead, I’m paying for it as much as you are, and I want it to be applied equally, regardless of whether that’s in terms of sex, sexuality, race, or whatever.
Obviously, men aren’t the victims of DV to the same extent as women – not at the ‘serious’ end of the spectrum, at least. I’ve no problem with that. But saying ‘what about the men?’ isn’t meant to imply male victims are more important. It’s a reaction to a division that seems to have appeared a priori. If I was to ask “well … female offenders are going to be on it too, right?”, it’s not that I think female-on-male DV is a more serious or more important problem. It’s that I see the proposed policy phrased and discussed in a way that suggests female-on-male DV isn’t actually going to be considered at all. It’s an objection to a division that’s already been made.
The database almost seems a trivial example in a way. Presumably, we’d all accept serial violent offenders of either gender should be on it? And that the majority would end up being male? The real question, lost in the event, is what use it would be.
Ok, a couple of points. Re my moderation or lack of moderation of the comments, I have to admit that’s the thing I’m struggling with most on this blog at the moment, when to, whether to, and how to.
As I’ve already explained, I was away when most of the discussion took place. If you look at the thread you can see that I arrived a whole 24 hours after the comment had been posted, by which time there were a dozen or more other comments referencing it. So what was I supposed to do? – do like CiF and disappear every other comment that mentioned it, or assume that as the Ciffers involved were some of those who complain most loudly about comment moderation and free speech on CiF they’d prefer comments to be left alone?
Once I’d posted the reminder about the comment policy, and given people a chance to take it on board, I then edited some comments that followed my warning, ‘cos I figured I’d then laid down the law from that point on.
But in all honesty, I think even if I had been around when the comment was posted I would still have left it up. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but I understand exactly where it comes from. So some rad fems are a bit cynical when it comes to accepting at face value a man’s motivations in posting on a fem blog or recounting their experience of helping female rape victims? It’s not like they haven’t got a reason to treat so-called male allies with suspicion. Kyle Payne anyone?
The revelation that Ally only posted here in order to garner extra comments for his CiF piece, and his use of the term “bait” pretty much confirms that an element of cynicism from some quarters was perfectly justified anyway.
Cath –
I sympathise with you regarding the moderation issue. I don’t mean it in a patronising way – genuinely – but my first thought was: I feel a bit sorry that it’s descended to this. Your articles really deserve better, and it’s unfortunate, wherever the blame lies, to have to deal with such a shit-storm.
However:
That’s a little bit harsh, and I think it’s an unfair representation of what was posted. Polly said Ally benefited from male violence, on the basis he was male. He said, how did I benefit from, for example, my partner being raped? And Polly said, you benefited because you got to show how important you are. And you only did it to get to shag her again.
There is no glory there. No wonderful point. It’s not even cynicism. Cynicism has a certain intellectual respectability to it, whereas this was just insulting someone in order to avoid saying “Maybe I was wrong” to a male.
Some of the insults from the other side (no testerics about them though):
“Victims of violence against women deserve better.
Better than this.
Better than you.”
“certain people here are extremely bigoted, and genuinely unpleasant.”
“abusive nutters”
“Seems more a backslapping club for bitter feminists.”
“Some of the women on here are, emotionally, very young indeed.”
“Christ, you really are a sad bunch.”
As Stormy said on the other thread, this blow-up about Polly’s supposed worst insult evah! is simply grandstanding, another way for the CIF misogynists to try and control the debate here and import their woman-hating on to the threads here. Women have far worse shit said about them every hour every day on CIF but the same commenters that are throwing a fit here do nothing about it. That’s because they benefit by women being kept down or kept completely out of the debate by being verbally abused.
And stormy was called a “stupid cow”
I missed that. Disgraceful.
Cath deleted it.
Oh there were also all the sexist obnoxious comments from angryradfem that got deleted too weren’t there? So some of the sexism has disappeared but we all know it was thrown at us.
Yet the only thing that matters is OMG someone said something harsh to AllyF, the guy who was trolling this blog and showing off to his mates back at CIF.
Delphyne
Sorry im confused,
“ll the nastiness and contempt the blokes have spat out here are a pretty clear indicator that lots of them do hate women Biskie.”
Could you quote some of the comments which indicate hatred of women? Just a few would be fine. It seems many radfems cant resist, at every possible opportunity, to decide that they will debate no further because its just clear that their opponent is a woman hater. I could probably count on one hand the amount of times conclusive quotes have been supplied to back it up.
“It is of course possible that AllyF both cares about victims of domestic violence AND wants people to debate the issue on his blog. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.”
Im sorry thats far too logical for this place.
“Rabid misogynists are over-represented amongst the commenters at CIF.”
The more i hear from you, delphyne, the more i start to think that perhaps mens personal reaction to you specifically is skewing your perspective somewhat.
“including JayReilly, who I remember showing up to mention how homosexual relationships have high levels of DV too.”
Which they do, i provided evidence from the US department of justice. Whats your point? Do you not see how they might have a bearing on the narrative that all DV is patriarchal oppression? Its not rocket science, theres clearly something wrong with the narrative.
CIF has plenty of silly people, plenty of foul apes like the ones who abuse cath, but they arent the regulars, and there is still a lot of good debate, and most importantly people dont resort to absurd ad homs because you politely disagree with them.
Cath – you do think Pollys comment acceptable then, you ‘understand’ it. Nice. You seem a rather different person here on your own blog cath, let loose with your radfem brigade.
Delphyne, the ‘abuse’ you quote above from ciffers was in RESPONSE to the abuse from you lot. Do you understand that crucial difference? Its a bit like the Germans complaining about Dresden.
“hat’s because they benefit by women being kept down or kept completely out of the debate by being verbally abused.”
This is the sort of nuttery that makes people just laugh at radical feminism. Its not a war, most men and most women get on very well, most men will never rape or abuse a woman in their life (fact). Get over it. The 70s ended. The gender war ended.
Delphyne –
Thanks for the examples. I’ll have a re-read to see, but I suspect Jay is right: these things were said in response to aggression and insults from the other side. Not that it really matters, I suppose – the whole thread became a car-crash. But I would take the alternate tack to you. The “cow” comment may well be out of line; I’d agree that Montana over-stepped the line there. But you don’t seem able to say that Polly’s comment was disgraceful too.
It’s weird. It feels like people are trying really, really hard not to condemn Polly’s comment. If I didn’t know better, I’d say there was a feminist conspiracy never to condemn a comment by a feminist in a public forum, even when it’s demonstrably unfair, ridiculous and offensive. There seem to be contortions going on.
So – would you reply specifically to me? Like I said, Polly’s comment applies to me personally. It would clarify your position immensely if you just said it out loud to me: that you think that was my motivation when my partner was raped. I think it might even be helpful for you to move the comment away from a general soundbite and address it straight to a real, living human being. For me, there’ll be no anger, just a clear sign there’s no point listening to you in future, and a general sadness that people like you actually exist.
This is quite unbelievable.
To start us off, Msvirago copies and pastes me saying I plugged my Cif article NOT to massage my ego but to start a debate, and she concludes that this means I did it to massage my ego. Does the word “not” mean something different here?
But never mind that. I’m not that bothered about the number of comments I get on articles. If I’d just wanted to garner lots of comments I could have found various MRA websites, blogs and forums, anti-feminist Facebook groups, and said ‘hey, come here and see me stick it to the feminists’ and I’d have got hundreds. Or I could have written something deliberately provocative about all the evils in the world being all the fault of abusive neglectful mothers or some such, possibly called ‘Why I hate women’ and got thousands.
But I had no wish to do either of those things because a/ I’d rather get fifty really interesting comments than 1,000 rounds of shitstorm, and b/ I don’t actually believe those things and I have no interest in just causing anger for the hell of it.
No, as I explained clearly in that post, I posted a link and an invitation to come and read what I have to say, and debate it with me. To quote myself from the other thread: “if any of you are genuinely interested in discussing why perhaps violence against women should not be seen in isolation from other forms of violence, then I’ve got a whole blog about it here… I’d be genuinely interested in your thoughts. And I mean that quite sincerely.”
Why did I do that? Precisely because I care about the issue and I want to have an informed intelligent debate about it. I believe that our understanding of issues can only be helped by debate, whether or not we change our minds. Without debate there is no political or intellectual progress, ever.
I didn’t go ‘pimping’ myself (blogging slang, no subtext meant) all over the internet just for the thrill of the hit count, I went to the two British blogs I knew where I thought there was a good chance I would meet people who might care about the issue and actually wanted to debate the issue. I did that in the full knowledge that there may be people there who know considerably more about the topic than I do, and could potentially pull apart my arguments. Why? Because if I’m wrong, I want someone to convince me of that. If my ideas could somehow lead to women being at greater risk, or otherwise lead to further injustice, then those ideas should be pulled apart and shown up.
And yes of course, because once in a blue moon someone might read what I say and change his /her mind a bit, which is another aspect of debate. But realistically I know that is pretty uncommon, and it’s not my main aim.
And so what, I’m meant to feel guilty about this? You guys are huffing and puffing about me actively trying to have an informed and intelligent debate about the topic? I wasn’t trolling, I specifically invited the readers here to come and debate the topic, and now the fact that I have done so is a “revelation”?
But all of that happened earlier. I saw it but didn’t want to inflame things further so I let it ride. But the final straw, the comment that completely and utterly floored me, was Cath (from whom I still didn’t expect this)
“So some rad fems are a bit cynical when it comes to accepting at face value a man’s motivations in posting on a fem blog or recounting their experience of helping female rape victims? It’s not like they haven’t got a reason to treat so-called male allies with suspicion. Kyle Payne anyone?
The revelation that Ally only posted here in order to garner extra comments for his CiF piece, and his use of the term “bait” pretty much confirms that an element of cynicism from some quarters was perfectly justified anyway.”
Think about what you’ve written Cath – the fact that I invited serious debate on the subject of domestic violence pretty much confirms that some people were justified in thinking I might be a rapist and/or exploit the horrific abuse of those I’ve loved for my own selfish ends.
Cath, I honestly hope that you are just tying yourself up in knots trying to defend the indefensible, because I really don’t want to contemplate the possibility that you actually believe what you said.
Just to confirm the chain of events chronologically:
AllyF posts his first (no abuse).
The kiss at the end is called “sickening, a sign of dismissal and contempt”. Thats one of the first responses to a man offering stats and asking politely for peoples thoughts, he is called “sickening”.
Next poster supports the “sickening” comment.
Ally responds, the ‘rudest’ he gets is “i can see im not welcome.”
Ally posts again, no abuse.
‘Stormy’ posts – “So don’t give me the BS that it is some sort of ‘equal’ problem”
Stormy nxt post – “n the use of “x” kisses to sign off: don’t use it when you have effectively come into a discussion saying “no! you (wimmin) are wrong!”. Makes you a condescending jerk with a superiority complex.”
Ally responds – no abuse.
Ally responds again – no abuse.
Delph – “Have you ever hit, pushed or used your superior physical strength to intimidate or overpower a woman as a matter of interest Ally?”
Delph – “My point is that you’re a man, you benefit from male violence against women. On the other hand your question was just a smart arsed way of dodging the point.
Ally (first rudeness) – “Your attitude is divisive, corrosive and destructive. Victims of violence against women deserve better. Better than this. Better than you.
Delph – ” How dare you try to take the harm done to them and use to it bolster your own position and pretend to be victimised by hurt done to them by men.”
More rudeness from Delph.
When us other ciffers join the debate the context is one of Ally getting a lot of rudeness and aggression from you lot, and wot with being his fanclub and all, that pisses us off a bit, not just cos its ally but because its just so plain unpleasant and uncalled for. Then theres Pollys comment to Ally which took things further still, to say the least. The whole thing then descended and ciffers were rude as well.
So lets cut the fantasy here, its pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain who was the aggressive party here, its all there in black and white. Before Ally or any ciffer responds in kind, Ally is called “sickening”, “condescending jerk”, “dismissive and contemptuous”, “BS”, asked if he has ever intimidated or hit a woman, told he benefits from male violence and called a “smart arse”. And you lot wanna play the “you’ve been rude too” game. Impressive response…
Polly (or Cath), could you confirm whether damagedoor is also just another shag hunter?
FFS Ally that’s not what I said at all. I simply said that a certain level of cynicism was understandable, and that some cynicism was justified in light of your later admission that you had some ulterior motives in posting here.
Of course I don’t think you helped out a rape victim in order to get in her knickers, but I do understand, even if I don’t hold that view myself, where that level of distrust comes from.
Yes it is a blokeosphere. I remember someone calling me a whore when I disagreed with him. It is not possible to officially complain unless one can do outlook express which I can’t. It no longer works with windows. So these days if someone is really offensive I have to tell them they have a flacid tiny penis and either it stands or both responses get deleted.
OMG. How did they find out about the con-spear-acy? Holy crap, we are all in trouble now!!!
“AllyF doesnt care about victims of domestic violence, he only cares about getting more comments on his blog and massaging his own ego.”
I see shameless misquoting by certain types of feminist isnt restricted to CIF then…
damagedoor –
‘But I think there’s a difference when it’s a proposed government policy we’re talking about. I don’t agree with the database, but assuming it goes ahead, I’m paying for it as much as you are, and I want it to be applied equally, regardless of whether that’s in terms of sex, sexuality, race, or whatever.’
Well, as far as I know, I don’t think JS has a problem with that, and I certainly don’t.
JayReilly –
‘Which they do, i provided evidence from the US department of justice. Whats your point? Do you not see how they might have a bearing on the narrative that all DV is patriarchal oppression? Its not rocket science, theres clearly something wrong with the narrative.’
My point is that not everyone is trying to claim that ‘all DV is patriarchal oppression.’ Anyone who’s read Joan Smith beyond her Cif articles will know very well that she believes in equality and is not some ‘lesbian feminazi.’ By treating her and others like her as if they are promoting such an agenda, you’re being actively dishonest and reductionist. I accept that there are people like Bidisha and Julie Bindel who can be very much like that, but Cath and JS (among others) are often very reasonable and they still get male commenters accusing them of things that they’re not saying.
‘Its not rocket science, theres clearly something wrong with the narrative.’
Well, by accusing people of things they don’t necessarily believe, aren’t you also skewing the narrative somewhat? If I wrote an article about how the majority of victims of DV are women, I’d be writing an article about the fact that the majority of victims of DV are women and asking why this is. Not hating on men, not saying you’re all evil and not saying that women/homosexuals aren’t capable of the same. If you then start going on about homosexuals and women doing it, you’re not really engaging with what I say, are you? It simply comes across as defensive, which is ironic. If you have nothing to be defensive about (which I would assume to be the case!), don’t get so defensive. I find it bewildering that, as someone commented on Cath’s other thread, so many male commenters take women writers’ critiques of social trends/behaviour so personally.
As Ally says, violence in general is wrong, and his approach to things in his Cif piece which was conciliatory and calm rather than superior and defensive, was a relief to see. I often agree with people like JS & Cath, and I’d find it staggering to be ‘told’ that I’m disregarding woman-on-man DV/ DV in homosexual relationships just because I asked why it is that so many women are still dying. Firstly, because it would be untrue and secondly because I see it as something of a straw man – it’s not acknowledging what I’m actually saying.
It’s really sickening to come here and see Julie Bindel being described as promoting a “lesbian feminazi” agenda and for the person saying it to be acting as if that is just reasonable discourse.
This division of the “good” feminists and the “bad” feminists is also sickening.
CIF seems to have taken its boots off and put its feet up here.
As I say these people need to get out more. How dare you upset poor ickle Ally F! He is so handsome and our hero!
It just goes to show you can’t be too careful.
KJB
“By treating her and others like her as if they are promoting such an agenda, you’re being actively dishonest and reductionist.”
You keep going on about this, can i just ask what i have said specifically about Joan Smith that justifies the above? Have i picked on Joan Smith? I think on Smiths articles i have mainly engaged with other posters, compared to some of cifs fem writers Smith is positively harmless. I dont remember being particularly critical of her personally to be honest, but i do have a dreadful memory so feel free to correct me (with quotes).
For those who believe all DV to be such (and there are many of them) the existence of homo and female DV is a major stumbling block that needs to be addressed. Even if you think the majority is oppressive and patriarchal in nature, what evidence supports this? What evidence breaks down DV into categories and shows the oppressive variety the dominant one? I have never seen such evidence, but Ally has posted evidence showing the opposite to be true, ie it being a minor factor.
I dont take such critiques personally, any more than i would, say, a Xtian writer saying only Xtians ever get grief in this country, and why are Xtians persecuted etc. If that wasnt the case, if they were ignoring other issues to make their case, i would say so. If the Guardian wants to maintain a line that says DV is a womens issue and never mention men or mutual violence or non oppressive DV etc, then i will continue pointing out these ommissions. It gets a little tiring to keep hearing the womenz complain that “but this ones about women, whats wrong with that, why cant we ever talk about the womenz” etc et. Talking about women is all that ever happens on the Guardian, and large parts of the media, BBC for example. Then it gets to the point where the only reasonable interpretation is that men are excluded from the public discourse on ideological grounds, i object very strongly to that. If you have evidence to the contrary im all years. If you look at the guardians last, say, 100 articles in their ‘gender’ section, you should be able to understand where im coming from. It isnt one off articles, Smiths article is part of a wider context, stop ignoring the big picture.
Delphyne – it seems you are easily ‘sickened’. If any woman were to ever justify the word ‘feminazi’, it would certainly be Bindel. I would expect you to like her though, she is a mad ‘political lesbian’ with extreme views which most of the public consider abhorrent and disgusting. Maybe she’d come on here as a guest writer, she’d go down a treat i’m sure.
Polly
I can only speak for myself but my response owes far more to feelings of disgust towards you than protective feelings towards Ally. Even if you had said that to a poster i dislike intensely i would react the same, the issue isnt Ally, its you, and more specifically your contention that men only show sympathy to women to shag them. Im still amazed that someone can genuinely hold that view.
‘This division of the “good” feminists and the “bad” feminists is also sickening.’
hmmm….
ironic… considering the reaction I got on the thread…
As I posted on the other thread, but it really needs saying again: it is completely disingenuous – in fact, dishonest – for JayReilly to come here and claim to simply want to debate, without disclosing his virulent anti-feminist views. He’s certainly happy enough to do so on CiF, where he can be sure of support.
Jay doesn’t want to “debate” with feminists, with its attendant implication of listening to what they have to say and judging it on its merits. He merely wishes to inform them of where they’re going wrong, and tell them – as indeed, I think he may even have done already on here – that it’s because naughty feminists are so nasty that “95%” of women don’t like feminism any more.
FWIW, I think Cath’s response to the will-you-condemnathon was pretty reasonable, if you read it properly.
Look – this is not about men. It is about women.
Yes, there are men that suffer from DV. Go off, create a blog, write about it. But to constantly hijack threads about women and make it about men under the umbrella of “equality” is not going to go down well. Deal with it! And you wonder why Polly would be suspicious of a man derailing a thread to talk about how he isn’t an abuser. Of course she is suspicious – a man coming along to write about himself in a thread that was about women, does that not reek of trolling? Her response might have been a bit much, but like Cath, I can totally see where she was coming from. But now, instead of talking about DV victims, we’re all talking about what the horrible radfem said to man and hurt his feelings. FFS.
I mean, look at this thread. Look at the previous thread. It’s petty, stupid fighting and has all but managed to avoid talking about the issue of violence against women. Derailing successful I guess.
If you’re more concerned about one throw-away comment from Polly that bruised someones feelings than about the epidemic of male violence towards women, then there is something wrong with you. Get over yourselves.
Jennifer
“I mean, look at this thread. Look at the previous thread. It’s petty, stupid fighting and has all but managed to avoid talking about the issue of violence against women. Derailing successful I guess.”
I quite agree.
I’m just not sure who you think it is that wanted to discuss violence against women, and who it was who was doing the derailing.
You’re right, JenniferRuth, and I am just as guilty of that myself. My only excuse is that I’ve been posting on CiF a lot recently, where ‘What About Teh Menz?’ is pretty much the default comment on any topic about, well, women.
The other problem with how to challenge DV is where the hell to start. Is it more important to educate the abusers themselves, or to try and change the endemic attitudes within society demonstrated by all these polls?
To be honest, when I start to think about this and how deeply entrenched it all is, it’s like staring up at a wall so high, I fall over backwards trying to see the top.
Jay doesn’t want to “debate” with feminists, with its attendant implication of listening to what they have to say and judging it on its merits. He merely wishes to inform them of where they’re going wrong, and tell them – as indeed, I think he may even have done already on here – that it’s because naughty feminists are so nasty that “95%” of women don’t like feminism any more.
Well, if it’s only “5%” of women who do “like” feminism then what’s the worry? Or, are no women ‘allowed’ out of the box to challenge the status quo? If so, then it’s sounding incredibly domineering and controlling.
But maybe that’s because we are not doing it “wrong”.
ms virago thanks for your post on March 16, 2009 at 5:56 pm.
AllyF – I understand that you feel that you wanted a debate, but that isn’t how your comments came across. You comment here suggests you are still more interested in discussing who was right and wrong and who started the fight than in discussing DV towards women. I’d suggest starting afresh.
Finisterre – I understand that kneejerk reaction completely, CiF can definitely make you feel like that! I would say that that is why a lot of the regular posters here, understandably, immediately felt defensive.
I would say that the attitudes demonstrated in these polls are at the root of DV. Society makes an awful lot of excuses for why someone did something. I think we need to start at the very bottom – violence is never acceptable. A lot of abusers come from abusive backgrounds themselves, an I think that councelling could be a great help for them, but never at the expense of the women they are abusing. I think women need to be taken more seriously when they suffer from DV and we need to recognise that it isn’t as easy as saying “well just leave them” – abusers usually start off as the nicest man you’ll ever met. Great listeners, very sweet and they gain the trust of women. The abuse usually starts as little digs, ways to undermine the self-confidence of their partner – subtle stuff, which is laid on a groundwork of love and trust. So when that first violent attack comes the victim has already had so much of their self-esteem eroded that they will listen when the abuser promises never to do it again, when they say how much they love them and how sorry they are. And the cycle continues.
We need people to understand this cycle in order to reduce victim blaming. We need people to put the blame on the abuser – this does not mean that I don’t think the abuser should not get help, because god knows it takes a certain kind of fucked up psychology to do that. The first time a woman looks for support for DV then the police and courts need to take that seriously. The woman needs to know she has an out. The abuser needs to know that violence will not be accepted. It should not take a woman calling the police 3 or 4 times to be taken seriously. The most dangerous time for a woman who is suffering from DV is when she tries to leave. That is when most victims die.
At the moment we are almost willing to overlook what is regarded as “minor” incidents. It is changing this attitude that will allow us to help women break out of the cycle – and abusers too. We need to be there for that first incident of DV, without victim blaming, without analysing to death the whys or wheres, without asking who started it, and say that it is not acceptable. If we can do that, then I think we can help both men and women destroy the cycle of abuse.
I’m not saying that this won’t take a lot of work – like you, I feel it is a huge wall. But I have a lot of faith in men and women and I think it is possible.
I welcome other peoples thoughts.
Fin
“it is completely disingenuous – in fact, dishonest – for JayReilly to come here and claim to simply want to debate, without disclosing his virulent anti-feminist views.”
I didnt come here for debate, i came to say hello to cath and see her blog. Were it not for the treatment of Ally and subsequent row i would have left. If i want debate i stay on CIF, i certainly wouldnt look for debate with you lot. My views are only ‘virulently anti-feminist’ when it comes to certain types of feminism/feminists. Of all my favourite posters on CIF many are female, probably over half, and all of those are ‘feminists’, every one.
“Jay doesn’t want to “debate” with feminists,”
Yes i do actually. I like debating with Kiz, Annetan, Montana, Sarka, MsWoman etc. The difference is that they are interesting, intelligent and not blighted by a flagrant hatred of men and contempt for anyone who challenges their dogma. I debate with them every week, how is that someone who doesnt want to debate with feminists? Any response? Or were you talking rubbish?
“hat it’s because naughty feminists are so nasty that “95%” of women don’t like feminism any more.”
Erm, yeah. Thats wrong i suppose. So tell me what is the real reason for the decline? Let me guess, the menz, the patriarchy…
“Well, if it’s only “5%” of women who do “like” feminism then what’s the worry? Or, are no women ‘allowed’ out of the box to challenge the status quo? If so, then it’s sounding incredibly domineering and controlling.”
No, the problem is that when the media and government decide that ‘feminism’ speaks for women, its a bit of a shame that only 5% get on board. When i think about the women i know being ‘represented’ by some of the people here because they’re ‘feminists’, well, it grates. As Ally says, they deserve better, and theres plenty of feminism out there that does it better, including on CIF.
JenniferRuth – I’ve given your 10:51 am comment a thread of its own: I hope you don’t mind.
One thing I’ve learned today. Misogyny and Misandry are two sides of the same coin.
Has anybody noticed how the male misogynists comments are generally much longer than most of the women’s here? They like to take up a lot of space. You’d think on a feminist blog it would be women doing much of the talking given that it is our liberation that is at stake, but even here men like to stake out their claim and show who is really boss.
Joanna Russ I think it was said that in conversations men like to express their dominance by interrupting or correcting women. I’ve seen a lot of that – you can add insulting to the mix too. All they try to do is pick women’s arguments to pieces so we’re supposed to waste all our time defending what we’ve said.
Where do they learn to behave like this?
It’s the on-line equivalent of those asshole guys who sit with their legs really far apart on the Tube, particularly if there’s a woman sitting next to them.
I’d like to know where blokes learn to behave in that particular way as well.
“I’d like to know where blokes learn to behave in that particular way as well.”
You know at school where the girls get given the tampax talk: then, no, really (!)
Honestly, from the comments on here you’d think men and women were different species!
How do you interrupt someone on a forum?
I think we’re back to the “line by line” problem again Jay…………..
“sickening”
Yup!
(am I not a misogynist now my comments are short?)
Delphyne –
It’s a little disingenuous to imply that, were it not for the misogynists (or “people who disagree with you”, to give them their real-world title), you would have somehow had a massively intellectual debate and cracked this difficult problem.
What exactly did Ally’s intelligent and considered comment derail? Not long before his intervention, people were talking about tattooing male offenders on their foreheads.
So I thought I’d do a little survey on the most recent wife battering thread with my tape measure to see if anyone is dominating/controlling the thread by measuring the number and length of their responses. It would probably be interesting to do it on this one too:
Anyhow results are as follows (they aren’t double checked and they are approximate so anybody else is free to get out their ruler or check my sums):
Judith Haire – 4cm
Finisterre – 4, 9, 6.5, 9.5 = 29cm
Buggle – 0.5, 1.5, 4.5, 2.5, 1.5 = 10.5cm
AllyF – 13.5, 3.5, 10.5, 3.5, 4.5, 21, 14.5, 6.5, 18.5 = 96cm
Delphyne – 5, 1.5, 11.5, 4 = 22 cm
Violetforthemoment – 22.5, 17 = 39.5 cm
Polly Styrene – 3, 1.5 = 4 cm
Sam – 2 cm
Sparklematrix – 2 cm
That was when the other thread was at 29 comments
Hi Cath,
I just read the posts you quoted above and agree. Some of them are truly nasty. Particularly the one saying “you’re to ugly to be raped” or whatever the exact words were. But I stand by my comment that accusing someone of supporting their girlfriend after being raped just so they could “keep on shagging her” is at least as nasty. I say at least because Ally told us he actually did look after his girlfriend. I don’t know whether you have been raped (and I’m not asking). But if you had written a post about it and then got the response you posted that would have been a worse post.
Not that there should be some sort of rating system for nasty posts. God, I’ve rambled on a bit, but I I just wanted to explain why, even after reading all those posts you quoted, that I still think the one I commented on is “one of the nastiest comments I have ever read” or words to that effect.
no-one is going to do the honourable thing and acknowledge that Polly was completely out of order, are they?
the irony is that I considered myself to be (as) sympathetic (as a man can apparently be) to feminism before I stumbled across the commenters on this blog. I truly hope that you all represent a fringe element. This isn’t feminism, it’s misandry.
Polly wasn’t “out of order”- at least I don’t think so. She was expressing her opinion. You are certainly free to disagree, or to think it was an awful comment. I think plenty of comments in these threads are awful, but not Polly’s. I understand where she was coming from and what she was expressing. Just because it upsets you, doesn’t mean it was abusive or “out of order” or that she should be condemned for it. Honestly, as feminists we hear worse on a daily basis. Get over it dudes.
I wonder what would have happened if a man on these boards had accused a lesbian radfem of consoling rape victims just to get a shag. I think you lots ‘understanding’ would be just a tad less, no?
They are only focusing on Polly, buggle, to distract from their own misogyny and attempts to dominate and disrupt this blog and the feminist discussions within it. Don’t fall for it. They aren’t being sincere.
I’m surprised nobody has picked on the fact that AllyF contributed a third of all the posts to that other thread despite the fact there were nine people posting on it and nearly half the commentary there – all anti-feminist, all designed to disrupt and discredit what is obvious to anybody with half a brain, that men in their millions use violence against women to keep us in second place. It’s political terrorism against women.
We could do the same analsyis on this thread and I’m pretty sure that the results would be the same – that men are making more and longer posts than women in order to dominate and control the conversation. They continually contradict and try to discredit what any woman has to say that is critical of men as a group. Blokeosphere indeed. Thanks for providing us with clear evidence of your activities chaps.
You crack me up delph. You really do.
Delpyne, did you really use a ruler against your computer screen to measure the posts on that other thread? And at any point in that process did you stop and wonder what on earth you were doing?
Dominate and disrupt – rinse and repeat.
Yeah, I think polly hurt their precious little feelings! Awww, so sad! Poor wittle menz…
Delphyne, I was so glad that you pointed out the number and length of these posts by men. I notice that so often on feminist blogs- just the incredible amount of space taken up by men who aren’t even discussing the POST! Just blah blah blah blah, women are violent too, blah blah, I’m right, you little ladies are wrong, blah blah, you are all mean! On and on and on. Do they realize that this is male privilege? No, I doubt it. I think they expect us to lap up their “brilliance” and give them cookies for being so smart. Yeah, not gonna happen dudes!
And Jay Reilly, that is an inane comment you just made. You need some serious feminist education if you hope to discuss these issues with actual feminists. Really an ignorant comment, and quite telling.
buggle – as Daly says “energy suckers”
I don’t think Ally only helped his wife so her could fuck her, but I do think it was selfish and shitty of him to fling his wife’s rape out as some sort of warped proof against Polly’s argument that global male domination is sustained by male violence and the threat of more male violence. His wife’s rape certainly came in handy on this blog when he wanted to reach for something heavy to hit feminists with for discussing how men systematically use violence against some women to maintain the upper hand over other women.
Many punters try to tell me why their prostituting is good for the people they pay to sexually use. One ex-military man explained to me that he liked pornography where women had their fecal matter smeared on the insides of their mouths with penises because “some women got kinks” and he just wanted to help those scatophiliac exhibitionists be sexually satisfied.
But the thing is, despite there being 10 to 20 times as many johns as prostitutes, no man I’ve spoken with in person or online has owned the truth of his prostitute use. If men can’t be honest about that then they will never see their defenses of prostitution as tangled with defenses of their own privileged access to women’s bodies. Oh the humanitarian concern Scatman showed for his friends he believed should have the right to stick themselves in and out of pretty, young women any time they felt the urge.
Polly said Ally benefited from male violence on the basis he was male. Taking the observable facts of how male terrorism operates as an opinion to argue against, the noblesse oblige asked how he benefited from his partner being raped and Polly pointed out that he gets to be her hero and also fuck her, as being the hero and fucking women are cornerstones of men’s domination since forever (literally, read The Iliad).
If Ally doesn’t see sex with his sexually tortured wife as a privilege to him then he’s not going to start now, but that’s entirely beside my point that his wife’s rape has no place in a rebuttal to a woman’s political argument about fear of male violence being the most effective and ferocious form of social control.
Very well said, Sam. Exactly.
As far as I remember AllyF didn’t say anything about a wife, he said “girlfriend” didn’t he? He didn’t say “current” either.
Actually this is what he said exactly:
“Right… so when I spent over a year helping a then-girlfriend pull herself through PTSD after her rape, that was to my benefit?”
Not a wife in sight.
delphyne –
“They continually contradict and try to discredit what any woman has to say that is critical of men as a group.”
I don’t blame them for getting uppity about being lumped in a group because of their gender. The same thing totally winds me up when people do it with women: women love shopping, like buying handbags etc etc, they don’t ALL do they???????
“As far as I remember AllyF didn’t say anything about a wife, he said “girlfriend” didn’t he? He didn’t say “current” either.”
So, what’s your point, a hierarchy between ‘wife’ and ‘partner’?. Seriously?
Whatever, Ally’s ex still may be identifiable even if she wasn’t ‘current’
Respect and confidentiality.
Ignorant? It was a genuine comment, i find delph comical. How is that ignorant? Ignorant of what?
Are alarm bells not ringing when you are congratulating one another on the use of a tape measure on your monitor to highlight ‘male privilege’? How is it a privilege? Who is stopping you lot writing ‘male length’ posts? No one. Writing long posts is not a privilege, unless you misunderstand the word at a basic level.
Male terrorism?
Political terrorism?
All from Ally posting some figures about violence then mentioning his gfs experience? The abuses of language here are quite staggering.
“If Ally doesn’t see sex with his sexually tortured wife as a privilege to him then he’s not going to start now,”
Why isnt it a privilege to them both? Why is she better than him? Why is he the lucky party in their intercourse?
I would take up a lot more points of yours as find you a particularly intriguing bunch but i have been told to stop bothering you all and you seem to inhabit another planet entirely so its a little tiring engaging.
I dont mean to be rude so apologies if i have been, i just find you a little difficult.
Biskieboo I don’t blame them for getting uppity about being lumped in a group because of their gender. The same thing totally winds me up when people do it with women: women love shopping, like buying handbags etc etc, they don’t ALL do they???????
The reason why calling men out re: male violence in comparison to stereotypes about women liking shoes and why they are not accepted to react in the same way is (apart from the glaring obvious) sexism. Very dangerous sexism. Now, sexism is a system. Women’s inferior status in society is a full time reality, a full-time performance, an all-pervasive set of established customs and assumptions. It’s interwoven into the very fabric of society, and every train of thought contributes to the pattern. It starts in the cradle and follows us to the grave. Now, if the male on female violence cap doesn’t fit then why wear it and why the defence?
Violence against women is a global human rights disaster. Do some reading on so called ‘honour killings’, rape used as a weapon of war (think Bosnia, DRCongo) ever increasing violent pornography, prostitution, cultural beliefs in mens’ ’right’ to batter their wives and so on and so forth…it all intersects and it’s all part of a continuum. And we here in the so called civilized global north still suffer residue from the legacy of men’s ownership of women.
Sparklematrix
“The reason why calling men out re: male violence in comparison to stereotypes about women liking shoes and why they are not accepted to react in the same way is (apart from the glaring obvious) sexism.”
Could you please rephrase this, I genuinely don’t understand what you mean.
Gotta love it when men tell women what male privilege is, and isn’t.
“So, what’s your point, a hierarchy between ‘wife’ and ‘partner’?. Seriously?”
The point is that if he had said “wife” there would be a confidentiality issue, whereas I don’t see there being one with saying “previous girlfriend”.
“The reason why calling men out re: male violence in comparison to stereotypes about women liking shoes and why they are not accepted to react in the same way is (apart from the glaring obvious) sexism.”
I also am not really getting this. I don’t see what sexism has to do with it, and nothing is “glaringly obvious” to me about why it is OK to lump all men together and say that they should be fine with it. I think it is much better to “call out” those men who are behaving inappropriately (in any way, I’m not just talking about violence) and not tar all men with the same brush.
“The reason why calling men out re: male violence in comparison to stereotypes about women liking shoes and why they are not accepted to react in the same way is (apart from the glaring obvious) sexism.”
Ha, sorry, rambled way of saying. “glaring obvious” means an analogy between male violence and a fetish for shoe buying don’t compare and is just sexist nonsense anyway. And that it’s all about sexism anyway, both male violence and female stereotyping.
And I disagree about confidentiality for a previous girlfriend not being important. Everyone is entitled to not have their private experiences broadcast – especially for something as horrible as rape.
Ally is not an anonymous poster on the net; therefore his ex girlfriends are identifiable. I worked as a SA/ rape counsellor for over ten years so my knowledge of related ethics is up to scratch. If a client of mine related this story as having happened to her, what would I be expected to say “well you aren’t his wife so what are you worried about?”
Haven’t got time to get stuck into the debate again, sorry, but for those who are worrying about my alleged lack of discretion –
I referred to three women in the post concerned.
One is my current partner who also contributed to the debate, and obviously has no issue.
The other is a current friend and who those who know me really, really well can probably guess who she is, but only because they already know her story. She has also seen the thread and has absolutely no problem with my comment. Indeed she has blogged about her own experiences before. Under the circumstances, I will not link.
The ex who was raped was my girlfriend very nearly 20 years ago. I very much doubt there is a single person on the planet who would be able to identify her, except herself. And to be honest, if by some weird outlandish coincidence she were to see that thread, I’m confident that my use of the example wouldn’t be her greatest concern.
Now you can all stop worrying about them.
AllyF has no interest in debate.
His responses to the perfectly reasonable comments to his initial post on here on the original DV thread, show that. He isn’t going to change his mind.
He initially posted on here disagreeing, but reasonably. OK, fair enough.
His responses to people who disagreed were aggressive, however.
He then linked to his piece twice, clearly wanting attention for it, and when no feminists commented (you actually wonder why, Ally?) linked to this blog from CiF, bringing in his fanclub.
He makes it all about himself. Poor ickle Ally’s hurt feelings.
Pathetic.
Just pathetic.
Polly’s comment that is apparently OMG! The! worst comment EVAH! was maybe not nice, but who is nice all the time? I too can understand where that distrust comes from – anyone who seriously thinks it was as bad as the comments to herself that Cath quoted, well, really needs to get some perspective.
Yes indeed, rather an impressive thread demonstrating perceived male supremacy.
I thought his posts were pompous and patronising from the get go. Never say in 4 lines what you could say in 50. And the fanclub turning up to support him was hilarious.
Women’s experiences at the hands of men shouldn’t be up for debate, least of all on a feminist blog by men who have a clear interest in maintaining the status quo. By pretending that male oppression of women doesn’t exist men ensure that women never move to the next stage which is deciding what we do about it. We remain stuck justifying ourselves.
A lot of feminist blogs refuse to take comments from misogynists or men who refuse to accept the basic tenets of feminism. That’s not stifling debate, that’s refusing to allow feminist debate to be stifled. It’s not the greatest idea to allow the lowest common denominator to frame the argument. Defending the status quo requires very little energy whereas standing up to it requires a great deal. Fighting with anti-feminists is exhausting and a waste of time for feminists.
Women’s experiences at the hands of men shouldn’t be up for debate, least of all on a feminist blog by men who have a clear interest in maintaining the status quo.
Yes, and look at the hell it causes when men do feel the need to debate their experiences such as within race or class issues. It causes war, very often, literally.
And to be honest, if by some weird outlandish coincidence she were to see that thread.
It’s nothing to do about your ex-partner seeing the thread Ally; it’s about others who know you and your history seeing the thread and recognizing those women. Without their explicit permission in the here and now to be used as “points” in your “debate”. And that’s without a man using women’s suffering to bolster his argument.
Butterflywings Says:
Polly’s comment that is apparently OMG! The! worst comment EVAH! was maybe not nice, but who is nice all the time.
Men who batter their wives would no doubt agree with you on that one. It’s just so damn hard being nice to other people isn’t it? Perhaps we should just give up trying eh?
Ally,
Stick to your (well researched) facts, research and experience. You’re being pulled into a “debate” where facts are nil and personal attacks are the norm. As they say – never argue with a fool: you get pulled down to their level and then beaten with experience.
Or, as Sparklematrix said, they dominate and disrupt – rinse and repeat. The Radfems here do it well – very well – and then accuse you of the same thing.
Apologies for the length of this comment.
Polly’s comment on the DV thread went too far; it encroached on someone else’s trauma to score an angry flippant point against AllyF. But AllyF, what purpose did your comments about your support to women in your life serve on that discussion, save to insist you be excused from having to listen to feminists and from doing them the respect of engaging with them on their own terms?
Delphyne explained to you, “Men receive male privilege over women because of the violence men as a class enact on women as a class”, and you dismissed her. That IS a basic premise of feminism. It is useful precisely because it frees us from the futility of trying to understand violence and prejudice against women solely in terms of the acts and intentions of individuals and of trying to address it by apportioning guilt and blame. Instead it enables us to describe the systematic nature of gender oppression, and understand that we’re all (women and men alike) participants in a patriarchal, sexist society and see the ways that has shaped us, the ways we perpetuate it and the ways we might resist it. We can see how our desire for equality is opposed by a powerful social hierarchy constructed around the notion of gender difference (that operates alongside the various other hierarchies organised around the notions of race difference and of class difference, and around sexual orientation and around bodily differences).
In the context of anti-oppression discourse, the notion of privilege is a well-accepted and useful concept. As a male person born into a sexist, patriarchal society, a society that esteems men over women, you have male privilege. You can’t give it up, unless you change sex, because you will always be treated as a man. Male privilege is simply that you don’t get treated like a woman – violence, harrassment, marginalisation, exploitation, discrimination, objectification, whatever. You might be on the receiving end of shit like that for other reasons, if you were black or gay for example, (because you would lack white privilege or straight privilege), and you might get shit for not conforming to norms of masculinity, and you might get also get some of that shit randomly, BUT (this is the crucial though not very comforting point) you don’t get subjected to it for being a woman.
Male privilege is also that you don’t have to deal with or even think about sexism and the oppression of women unless you choose to. Women don’t have the choice, we are targets of it all our lives. Saying this does not or should not invalidate oppression that does target you, nor does the idea of privilege mean that feminists think men are innately bad – it is simply to state how things are. This is not a competition about who is most oppressed, but an endeavour to understand the workings of oppression so that we can struggle more effectively to end it.
So this is what was meant when you were told that as a man you have male privilege. When one man hurts, intimidates, or discriminates against a woman because she is a woman all men benefit, (whether they like it or not), because that man has re-asserted and re-affirmed the status of men-as-a-class over women-as-a-class (whether he meant to or not). He’s repeating a pattern of oppression that is enacted day after day in place after place, in big traumatic ways and in infinitesimally trivial ways.
AllyF, instead of even trying to accept in the smallest way that referring to male privilege and men as a class is actually NOT a personal attack on any particular man, you chose to continue to misconstrue and make it all about you personally. (Slow hand-clap). Because that served to strengthen your position in what you see as the “debate”, albeit in a very juvenile and superficial way, by making out you were being hard done by.
If the context of the discussion were what men can do to help their partners who are rape survivors, I hope you would have useful things to share about your own reactions in the aftermath and what was and was not helpful to your partner, and so on. In the actual context, your comments about your women friends’ experiences were self-serving, functioning to try to deflect criticism and silence other commenters instead of engaging with them in good faith.
While reading around at CiF, (to remind myself what it’s like and figure out what gets to me about the dynamics of discussions over there), I found Joan Smith’s piece about the Worboys rape cases, and there are you, AllyF, saying:
I just want to cry in frustration now. Either you are a double-talking shit, or you are massively blinded by male privilege here – which interpretation sounds better to you? You prioritise putting a woman writer in her place (“Joan Smith leaves me no option … Is a grown-up debate even possible?”), sowing doubt on women’s credibility and standing up for men accused of rape (in the middle of a comment thread already well-swamped by “what about the men?”), over all the women in your life who’ve ever been victims of abuse, rape and harrassment. You actively contribute in that discussion to reinforcing the notion that our reasonable first reaction to rape should be to disbelieve the victim, to question that a rape ever happened. You have the nerve to declare that being accused of rape would be worse than being sexually assaulted, when by your own words here on Cath’s blog you’ve seen the long-term impact of sexual assault on women who are close to you; you know how difficult recovery is, you know what the fall-out is like. Why didn’t you say that on CiF? Why didn’t you speak up wholeheartedly for justice for rape survivors instead of hedging your words like that?
How you’ve helped your friends and lovers cope with sexual violence means nothing if all that is to you is brownie points to cushion you against feminist criticism. Is that really all that means to you? Is discussion around rape and other gendered issues no more than an intellectual game, where you score debating points? Or is it actually something you care about, and on some level you really do want to help bring about equality and justice for women and other victims of male violence? If so then you really need to step back and look hard at how badly you’re going about it.
(darn, messed up the html)
Sorted, and thanks for a brilliant comment 🙂
Thanks! 🙂
Could i ask a serious question, and im really not trying to disrupt or annoy anyone here, im genuinely interested – you have talked a lot between about the current and historical condition of women in this patriarchal society, but could i ask what you consider the solutions to be? In terms of government policies, initiatives, etc? If you were in power, what would you do to correct the injustices you see?
MariaS, thanks for pointing out that comment.
AllyF seriously said he’d rather be falsely accused of rape than be raped? WTF?!
It’s hard enough for genuine rapists to be prosecuted, how the f*(* does he think a false allegation would result in prosecution?
At the absolute worst, it’d be a case of having to put on a suit and appear in court. To watch the false accuser be absolutely humiliated.
Most likely, it would be a case of talking to the police, who would probably be sympathetic and all too eager to dismiss the case.
That’s no more than an inconvenience.
6% of alleged rapes end in conviction.
That’s the ones the police don’t ‘accidentally’ record as ‘no crimes’.
Jay Reilly – it’s not so much a case of new policies and initiatives. Personally, and I can only speak for myself since feminists are not a monolith, I want to see existing laws, such as rape being a crime, DV being a crime, unequal pay being illegal, actually being applied. This would entail the radical notion that women are human being accepted.
OK – i mean for example, how would you increase rape convictions? Would you change laws at all? How would you police DV differently? Or would you change the DV laws at all? Would you do a nationwide pay audit for equal pay or any other methods? I mean the sort of nitty gritty of implementing these things, the actual changes on the ground. How would you improve the things you want to improve.
“Or, as Sparklematrix said, they dominate and disrupt – rinse and repeat. The Radfems here do it well – very well – and then accuse you of the same thing.”
Because this is a feminist blog therefore we should not be expected to revisit, ‘feminism 101’ and ‘fundamentals for total beginners’ every five minutes. Because it’s annoying, boring and counter-productive. (As the men know fine well)
Clue: it’s not CiF and – “waaa what about the men” does not get the FanGirl reception on here, and men get called out on Domination & Disruption. Gawd, this is bog-standard feminist stuff – please go read Feminism 101 in Cath’s side bar.
Here.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
And, “what about the men” disruption.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/18/phmt-argument/
“The problem occurs when conversations about women can’t happen on unmoderated blogs without someone showing up and saying, “but [x] happens to men, too!” (also known as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too” or PHMT argument, or a “What About The Mens?” or WATM argument). When this happens, it becomes disruptive of the discussion that’s trying to happen, and has the effect (intended or otherwise) of silencing women’s voices on important issues such as rape and reproductive rights.”
Or, just basically men taking over and dominating the discourse on a feminist blog.
Example: I’m an atheist but I don’t go onto xtian blogs expecting to be allowed to disrupt and dominate the conversation by squealing “but noo god is just a sky fairy – get over it”
I’m thinking of adopting Twisty’s guidelines for commenters. God I love that woman.
“I’m thinking of adopting Twisty’s guidelines for commenters. God I love that woman.”
Please do and me too – and I’ve got a comment in mod. “what about the two links”— I’m being oppressed.
Ooops. S’ok sparks, you’ve been liberated now 🙂
That 101 site is quite interesting actually, some good arguments. Though i’m not sure its enough to simply direct people there because the arguments it contains are all, obviously, feminist arguments. Some people believe a number of these arguments to be wrong, or need work, thats probably why you ended up directing them there initially. But it is an interesting site.
JayReilly, that’s the point – the 101 site brings you up to speed on feminist arguments and covers common questions about and objections to feminism. The ones you disagree with or think need work, go and debate on the relevant threads over there. That is what it’s for.
If you fundamentally disagree with feminism, then please avoid feminist blogs, it’s quite easy to do so. When you come into a feminist blog or other feminist space, you’re coming into an ongoing discourse, not only in that blog but far beyond that blog. If you come in to announce why feminism is wrong and that the blogger & the commenters should be talking about x, y, z instead, what do you hope to achieve? No-one in that space is going to turn round and say “oh my god, you are so right, I was totally mistaken to take feminism seriously, I see the light!”. They’re going to be bored and irritated with you, and view you as an interruption and a disruption, (if you’re very lucky they might show you a bit of patience and forbearance and do a bit of feminism 101). You are not the first person to come and dispute the basic premises and purposes of feminism, and you won’t be the last.
It seems to me from several comments in these posts here at Cath’s, that CiF-ers place great store on “debate” for its own sake, and that is what you enjoy about CiF. For example, Jay, you say approvingly up above that the Finally a Feminism 101 blog has some “good arguments”. Also, again with reference to Jay, on two of the CiF discussions I looked at recently, I was struck by how your first comment in both of them is to make some brief assessment of the merits of the article – sorry I don’t have time to hunt down the comments & link, but they were something like, “not a bad article”, indicating you feel the need to state your personal approval or disapproval of the article. I don’t mean to single Jay out as a criticism, this is just an observation of how you seem to approach the CiF articles. A lot of the CiF comments seem to have this approach, e.g. saying that an article is a waste of space and that it shouldn’t have been published. The commenters even seem to anticipate that they will be critical of the articles – on a recent piece by Bidisha listing all the celebrities who still get public attention despite convictions for or allegations of crimes like domestic violence, child abuse, and rape, there’s quite a few comments that express surprise that they like the article and don’t disagree with much of it, one person says something like “I normally disagree with everything Bidisha writes”.
So, it seems as if many CiF commenters participate with the expectation that they will disagree with what’s written and should pull articles to pieces in the comment thread, and that “debate” is a kind of game, who has the best put-downs, can shout loudest and so on. That’s as may be, but it also makes for a very competitive and hostile atmosphere that can be difficult and wearying to engage with, particularly for feminists (Actually I’m pleasantly suprised at how there continue to be so many articles on feminism and focusing on women on CiF).
I read widely around the feminist blogosphere, and the contrast between discussion on many feminist blogs and that on CiF is huge. In many feminist discussion threads comments usually expand usefully on the subject of the post, people share relevant experiences, add information, there is a lot of teaching and learning going on, a lot of consciousness-raising. I don’t find much of that at CiF – any good stuff gets drowned out, it’s really not worth ploughing through the comments because I know that they will be frustrating to read.
A good contrast is between CiF and Shakesville, which is a well-established feminist-led American politically progressive blog with multiple contributors and a large community of commenters. I went and looked at the most recent post on feminism that I could find there, to make some observations on the discussion there. It is as always an absolutely spot-on piece of feminist writing by Melissa McEwan, and I urge everyone on this thread to read it anyway, because it dovetails so neatly with what we are discussing: both violence against women and the marginalisation and belittling of feminism.
With regard to the comment thread, there’s loads of supportive comments saying unreservedly how great the piece is – commenters aren’t coming at it like contest judges but applauding because they like it and feel it speaks truths that resonates with them. Many of the comments in themselves are interesting additions to the subject of the post. There is a slight disputation in the comment thread where Melissa feels that a commenter is mistaking something, but it’s resolved on both sides with great courtesy and respect. Shakesville does get lots of trolls and non-feminists coming in to disagree, but the community dispatches the obvious trolls swiftly, and engages with other newcomers in a polite way but with a low tolerance for disruptive behaviour.
Now, Jay and other CiF-ers will probably say that Melissa is preaching to the choir and that Shakesville is an echo chamber, fair enough. It won’t suit you commenters who like the more combative style and seem to feel that everything must be contested for the sake of contesting it. But no one would be forcing you to go there.
Can’t we just say “Fuck off”?
Stifling or shouting down feminist discussion is a political tactic, not a simple difference in viewpoints. It’s designed to shut the speakers up and to make any would-be feminists too afraid to speak up because of the reaction they will get.
Fantastic comment, MariaS.
“though I’m not sure it’s enough to simply direct people there because the arguments it contains are, after all feminist arguments”
Que?
Enough for whom?
It’s a bit like saying why don’t we argue with Nick Griffin about why racism is wrong. Because there’s no fucking point and life is too short. Doh! You’re anti feminist, I’m ecstatic for you. Stop telling me about it though.
Reading Libby Brooks on CiF on the licensing of lap-dancing clubs, and besides the usual guff that accompanies discussion about the sex industry there are tons of comments telling her that she’s a bad writer:
Very transparent insecure lashing out: tell the woman she’s incompetent and maybe she’ll run away and cry and stop saying things you don’t like.
“though I’m not sure it’s enough to simply direct people there because the arguments it contains are, after all feminist arguments”
It covers the fundamentals of feminist theory and observations which we cannot be bothered to go over ad nauseam. If you don’t agree with them, well fair enough just don’t expect us to “debate” them, because they are the basic principals of feminism. It’s like trying to convince a vegetarian that chickens do well by battery farming.
“Oh you bad, bad, evol feminists. I hate you and you’ve done nothing to stop me.”
As I say. Que? You’re obviously mistaking me for someone who cares.
Thanks for the link to the Shakesville article, MariaS. It was excellent, but the last part in particular resonated with me. It’s relevant to this thread, so I hope I will be excused for quoting it at length, but it also eloquently sums up how I feel; that although I read, and love, Twisty, Cath and others, I’m just a feminism beginner starting to find my way around the new worldview that my eyes have been opened to.
[Incidentally, how do you do quotes on here?]
________________________________
From Melissa McEwan at Shakesville:
“Women and girls don’t come to feminism/womanism after waking up one day with the tenets and narratives of equality and autonomy fully formed in their heads. If we’re lucky, someone in our lives introduces us to some of these ideas, but most of us have to seek it out, or stumble across it in the middle of a struggle to come to terms with the fucked-up fucking fuckery that is living in a culture steeped in messaging that tells us we’re second-class at best and worthless pieces of shit who don’t even meet the basic qualifications for personhood at worst.
And our deliverance, the means by which we are conveyed from the self-loathing of less than, and the space we’ve made in which to do it, is still considered a fucking ghetto.
That’s not my characterization. That’s the phrase used by the “progressive” male bloggers who have asked me if I don’t get tired of languishing in the feminist ghetto. Wouldn’t I like to lift myself out of the ghetto? If I’d just stick to writing about politics, and shitcan all that strident feminist stuff, I could escape the ghetto.
Well.
One man’s ghetto is another woman’s salvation.
Where have we gone wrong with girls? By allowing womanism/feminism to be rendered to the margins—ignored, demonized, ridiculed, caricatured, dismissed. By allowing its advocates and practitioners to be harassed, threatened, intimidated, mocked, abused. By treating as a ghetto all the spaces in which young women might come to the ideas that underlie a belief that violence against women is wrong, that no woman “deserves it.” By expecting girls to somehow be above a culture that keeps its boot firmly planted on their goddamn throats.
We, we feminists/womanists, are a fractured, disorganized contingent, for whom the solidarity we seek is often elusive—and yet we are nonetheless treated like a virulent virus that must be destroyed because our ideas are powerful. And they are also, for so many young women, inaccessible.
Where have we gone wrong with girls? By treating as a plague the antidote to what ails them. By pretending we want them to live their lives in a way only womanism/feminism can allow them, but withholding the tools at every fucking turn.”
Yes it was just so perfect, wasn’t it? I was just grabbing for any feminist discussion about feminism for contrast with CiF.
Here’s a great comment from that thread:
To quote text and do other formatting in comments, you can usually use html mark-up (not every blog will allow this, but most seem to) – for quoting, you use the “blockquote” tags (the tags being the bits in angled brackets, there is a start tag and an end tag):
<blockquote>(some quoted text)<<⁄blockquote>
But ignore that first angled bracket that’s right after the “(some quoted text)” bit.
So I was taking a look at Lundy Bancroft last night and I came across this:
“Mr Right
Mr Right considers himself the ultimate authority on every subject under the sun; you might call him “Mr Always Right.” He speaks with absolute certainty, brushing your opinions aside like annoying gnats. He seems to see the world as a huge classroom, in which he is the teacher and you are his student.
……. Mr Right’s superiority is a convenient way for him to get what he wants….. He ridicules and discredits her perspective so that he can escape dealing with it.
……. When Mr Right decides to take control of a conversation, he switches into his Voice of Truth, giving the definitive pronouncement on what is the correct answer or the proper outlook. Abuse counsellors call this tactic “defining reality”.
……. Mr Right tries to sanitize his bullying by telling me, “I have strong opinions” or “I like debating ideas.” This is like a bank robber saying, “I’m interested in financial issues.” Mr Right isn’t interested in debating ideas; he wants to impose his own.”
It’s patriarchal hegemony people. Women are given – it appears – a degree of ‘freedom’. And then encouraged to identify not as oppressed, but as having interests allied with the ruling class.
Paradoxically, you’re a lot more fucked when your oppression isn’t obvious than when it’s staring you in the face.
* Gives round of applause to Maria S *
..and then one for CE just for good measure, and for putting up with the ya-boo crappery that gets thrown her way.
If the angry blokes got angry about injustice towards women as much as they do about their own victimhood, there’d be no need for such a thing as feminism and we’d be working towards kicking out injustice in all its forms as a joint effort. Some guys do care, but lots of the CiF inhabitants just want to rant about their own victim status as oppressed men. Shyeah, right, i’d change places with you poor oppressed chappies anyday. You can have a mascu-nazi hat and i’ll get to rule the world (or watch (women’s)footie, scratch my crotch and watch you do the dishes while I spew rants about oppressive ‘min’ on the tinternet ).
Heh fair exchange ! 🙂
A rather perfect extract from Bancroft, delphyne. Sums up most of the imports from CiF rather well, with their love of “debate” and trying to resolve “human problems” on a feminist blog.
This from delphyne bears repeating:
Stifling or shouting down feminist discussion is a political tactic, not a simple difference in viewpoints. It’s designed to shut the speakers up and to make any would-be feminists too afraid to speak up because of the reaction they will get.
Men, you are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Pick one. Stop hedging and pretending, deflecting and disrupting. Females are the experts on how male domination affects nearly every element of females’ lives. We get to define feminism. Now get over it. And piss off back to CiF, blokecentral.
It’s designed to shut the speakers up and make any would-be feminists too afraid to speak up because of the reaction will get
Bears repeating endlessly. Doesn’t always work though…
Sorry, last bit meant to not be italics.
Can I also say how utterly thrilled, nay honoured I am to be the official evillest woman in the world, far worse than say, Rosemary West. Or even Thatcher/Harriet Harman/Margaret Hodge/Edwina Currie etc etc.
I thank you.
I meant to comment earlier:
And stormy was called a “stupid cow”
Well, that doesn’t worry nor anger me at all. I gather it was probably from one of Ally’s cheerleaders, it sounds like something a 20-something young woman would say in order to score points with men. Hope the headpat was worth it.
What does get me mad is all the ‘proper’ debate; humanism (trying to masquerade as feminism); the “waddabout teh menz”; “women as just as violent as men”; yaddah yaddah yaddah. And trying to solve the world’s problems by focusing in on the exceptions and minority causes – that is a pure distraction technique, designed to keep the status quo.
And see how it works, this thread, about the constant abuse feminists receive at CiF and blogging, gets brought back to “but polly said the worstest comment in the history of the internet!”. Distraction, and focusing on the minority case, in order to derail.
Being polite and ‘reasonable’ does not negate the troll behaviour.
And I note that these dudes are not only sexist, but racist. The two go hand-in-hand. Some of them don’t even know they are doing it (and some do).
I don’t think men going on to feminist blogs and saying “but What About the Menz” (which has an unfortunate tendency to mean “it should be all about the menz” as opposed to “men do, sometimes experience physical/sexual assault too, though not to the extent that women do”) is equivalent to an atheist pointing out that there isn’t any evidence that god exists under any circumstances, religion is one of the most ludicrously privileged things in the whole universe.
To those arguing that because a woman says something horrible it is OK to use misogyny in your protesting response, why is that exactly? If someone in a wheelchair or who was gay or black said something insulting to you would you respond by calling them some ableist, homophobic or racial slur (and if you would then stop doing that for crying out loud), it’s just verbal vengeance (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, an insult that is based on something which one should not be insulted for an insult that is based on something for which one should not be insulted).
Yes.
polly’s comment was disgusting, Cath’s cowardice in refusing to condemn it is worse.
There are a lot of unpleasant people on this blog. Not because you’re feminists, not because you’re women. Just because you’re unpleasant.
AllyF did two things that upset some people- he destroyed some of the cornerstones of your ideology (e.g. men benefit from rape). Then he, a man, he dared to suggest working together to make things better.
Interestingly, that thread has been highlighted as how not to do web etiquette over on the CiF board (the etiquette thread).
Yeah well to repeat myself.
Can I also say how utterly thrilled, nay honoured I am to be the official evillest woman in the world, far worse than say, Rosemary West. Or even Thatcher/Harriet Harman/Margaret Hodge/Edwina Currie etc etc.
Get a grip m. I was taking the piss of out Ally F’s self aggrandisement.
And I’d do it again in an instant. And if you’re looking for a woman to try this emotional blackmail crap on, please look elsewhere.
i know i have come to this really late…
i find CIF incredibly hostile. it isn’t a good place for debate in my experience, it is a place for posturing and assumptions. many times i have had people be really rude to my CIF name (crookedrib) out of no where, and now i just do not go on it anymore as i don’t find it an edifying experience.
esp the vitrioal cath and julie bindel receive. now, i disagree with some things bindel says (well, a lot) but it doesn’t mean you have to be rude. i find blogs like this and the f word etc much easier and more interesting to engage with because even when you disagree with the view of the writer/other commenter, it is more of a debate about why you disagree, how you have come to your opinion and sometimes having your opinions widened, or questioned. it’s great, and it doesn’t descend to the often nasty facile comments i often encouter on cif.
in terms of the specifics of what polly said and what ally said (sounds like a movie title!!) – i can totally understand why people find polly’s view offensive but i can totally understand why she said it. because women do often feel like this because whether ally meant it that way or not, it does happen. it isn’t right that it happens, but it does. and frankly, it is up to men to make sure that doesn’t happen.
and what i really can’t understand is why ally said it in the first place? it seemed like classic wanting a cookie speak to me. i would certainly hope that if i was raped my boyfriend would support me through the aftermath because hey, guess what, that’s what normal decent humans should do. just as we support our friends through the aftermaths of their rapes or DV. i don’t go around saying “i helped so and so” and “i did this for this person” because that is just what we do for people we care about.
Polly – so you were, in effect, making a rape joke?
Can we just be clear? You were exploiting another woman’s suffering to score a cheap point. Taking the piss. You didn’t mean it. I know you’ll never say sorry, not to a man, but this is frankly pathetic.
No damagedoor -AllyF was exploiting a woman’s suffering to make a cheap point.
Get it right.
He talked on a public blog about stuff about traumatic events that women had told him about – presumably believing it was in confidence, to make himself out to be a hero.
I was taking the piss out of AllyF, not rape.
Oh and can the CiF lot who all assume that Cath is a lesbian – hence the vitriol – admit they’re all massive homophobes as well, while we’re at it?
Grimoopstyrene:
Nah, no emotional blackmail (because you don’t have any emotions other than anger).
YOU were the one exploiting that woman’s suffering to try to win an argument, and you know it.
The day you can read that thread and see where you went wrong, well, there might be some hope for you.
Hi sianushka
I don’t agree with that, and I think the thread in question shows that perfectly. Some mud gets flung on CiF but the word twisting here to the point of the comments that pollybitteroopnorthstyrenegrim made is sick.
People seem to come to this blog to agree. “Great post Cath! Couldn’t agree more Cath!” If anyone dares object or disgree here it’s because he’s a misogynist and a wannabe rapist or because she’s looking for a pat on the head.
No debate whatsoever.
hi again sianushka
On the basis of that, do you not find it offensive to suggest that all men benefit from rape? That was the point of what ally was saying. I asked the same questions on another thread and got the same hateful “answers”.
He was told he benefits from rape. He gave an account relating that to his personal experience. Most people at this point would, seeing it in that context, say “ah, shit, actually that must be horrible from his point of view- maybe he doesn’t benefit from it at all”.
Instead he was told he was just helping her so he could carry on shagging her.
That’s a really horrible accusation against someone you don’t know.
So, what do you think- would your boyfriend comfort you? If so, why? Does your boyfriend benefit from the fact that women get raped?
I’d appreciate your point of view because most people have moved on from this thread and I don’t think polly and I will ever see eye to eye on it.
hi m – i did kind of already say that i found what polly said quite offensive but i could understand why she said it.
and i stand by that whatever ally f’s motives i do not understand why he felt it necessary to bring this up unless he wanted a cookie? but i am second guessing his motives which isn’t something i really like doing.
i, personally, don’t think ALL men benefit from rape, and although i can understand why polly said that, i don’t share that view. but i think some men do benefit – horrible and uncomfortable as that is to admit. they must do, otherwise why the hell use rape as a weapon of war? it;s silly to say none do ever never ever. just as i disagree with polly saying all men do. in my view, it isn’t that black and white, it isn’t stuck on extremities.
i think some men benefit from rape. i think a lot of men don’t. but i also think the patriarchy (which is not an individual man or individual male perspective) benefits from a system that treats rape lightly, or treats rape as the victim’s fault, which our society overwhelmingly does. please understand that when i say the patriarchy i don’t mean all men, i cannot emphasise that enough. i am fairly sure ally f did not feel he benefitted from his ex’s rape. but i agree with other posters – why bring it up? why use a personal trauma as an anecdote in this debate? that is what i really struggled to understand.
sorry – i don’t think i am being all that clear or helpful! it’s quite difficult to define what i think as it is such a sensitive argument and i think good points have been made on both sides.
altho – i don’t think that’s the worst thing anyone has said on a web forum. i think some of the insane homophobic sexist nonsense cath quoted in the original post trumps anything polly said. i mean, the things those people said are deeply deeply nasty and offensive to people, male, female, gay, straight, everywhere, not just cath. and the language they use makes me feel quite sick.
in terms of debate, that’s a shame you don’t find either of the blogs i mentioned interersting for debate. we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one – i find cif far more name calling “no you’re wrong/no you’re wrong” than any other blog i have ever read. (well, except the daily mail! altho generally they all agree with one another until you put a cat amongst the pigeons!!) once i really really strongly disagreed with something i read on the f-word, but it was a space where i could really argue why i felt this way and hear the arguments against mine in a space that didn’t resort to throwing tantrums. i also feel, as maria s pointed out, that CIF indulges in far too much of “hmm, a badly written/well written/could do better” critique which drives me insane. and finally – CIF always seems a massive offender in accusing writers of not using enough stats to back up their arguments, and then using no stats themselves!!
anyway, i hope what i said makes sense. i think this argument has sat at two extremes and although i can see why, and i can understand why both sides feel that way, i personally believe/hope that there is more subtlety. the thing is that i have never been in ally f’s shoes (not a man, not had an ex who was raped tho plenty of friends) and i have never been in his ex’s shoes, never been a rape victim. if i had been, maybe i would feel differently, i can’t speak for people who have had those experiences, i can only give my opinion from my standpoint, without getting too hypothetical.
Hi sianushka
Thanks for writing back!
I think ally brought up that experience to underline why he find the suggestion that he benefits from rape to be ludicrous. To move from the general “men benefit from rape” to an individual level.
If we’re going to see polly’s statements as being no worse than those of racists and homophobes then we need to be as vocal about condemning her statements.
It’s not just that one comment though. That whole thread, with kizbot and montanawildhack attempting to engage and being so viciously attacked- well, I don’t really see that on CiF. Obviously there are some idiots, but there are everywhere.
allyf comes across as a very reasonable guy over on CiF, and is very fair- he doesn’t take sides and is very quick to criticise sexism. It was disappointing to see him get that reception here. There is a lot of hostility here, do you not feel that on the other thread. Polly, delphyne, stormy, sparklematrix. It was quite aggressive.
Maybe the difference is that CiF is moderated?
Oh well, it’s a personal thing I guess, we all feel comfortable under different circumstances.
Thanks for writing back, take care.
@M
“allyf comes across as a very reasonable guy over on CiF”
Hmmmm. I have to disagree. He seems to take pleasure from telling women how things are for them, how they should think, what the ‘right’ perspective is, how to be a feminist. Arrogance oozes out of many of his comments. I don’t think he posts on feminist topics in order to have debate or learn about others’ experiences, merely to tell us how we feminists have got it wrong.
You are right, sometimes he does criticise sexism, the bits he disapproves of. The sexist behaviour he participates in, he defends.
I know he has his followers, those that value his contributions, just don’t count me among them.
@msvirago
Sorry, I should have said he seems like a reasonable guy to me. I don’t get the arrogance thing. Then again some other commenters wind me up… and let’s not get started on those who write the articles 😉
I can’t think of any examples of the behaviour that you’ve described, which isn’t to say that they don’t exist, obviously. Do any spring to mind?
He did post one great comment about things that feminists do that wind men up. It was very well reasoned and was hopefully very helpful for those feminists who give a damn about engaging with decent blokes (stop laughing). It’s probably worth a read, although anyone who has already decided to freak about ‘teh menz tellingz az womynz what to dooz!1!!’ should either treat it as useful feedback or not click the link.
are you sure?
For those who dared to click… what did you think??
If you write rubbish you are eventually gonna’ be called on it Cathy. It ain’t because you’re a woman, it’s because you’re a loon dear lady.
I’ve disagreed with Cath’s cif posts myself Steve. However calling someone a ‘filthy lesbian’ is hardly reasoned debate….