24 May 2014, 3:06 pm
24 May 2014, 3:08 pm
24 May 2014, 3:35 pm
Dox47 wrote:
starvingartist wrote:
that one responder and what he said is not the extent of the flak i have taken for creating this thread, and for speaking my mind about sexism before on this site.
Lots of people speak out about sexism on this site, yet not all of them get the same reception as you, which points to a factor other than the feminism alone as driving the responses. People don't tend to like being brow-beaten, sarcastically dismissed, accused of bigotry, etc, and it's hardly surprising that some of the people targeted with that are going to respond in kind or escalate. people also don't like to be dismissed by someone to whom they feel attracted and entitled. some get angry, abusive, and violent when they are denied female attention. and it's funny that you say this, because other feminists on this site have told me the reason they stopped trying to make a difference in regard to sexism is because of the blowback they got, and how discouraged they felt that the men here would ever change. but i'm sure the reaction to me is really just because i'm a horrible b***h personally, and has nothing to do with me speaking out about things other people are very uncomfortable talking about.
starvingartist wrote:
people who don't even know me talking about how "irrationally emotional and hyperbolic" i'm being on the issue,...
They have to know you to point out that something you've said is emotional, irrational, or hyperbolic? You've never cast aspersions on the statements of others you're not personally familiar with?no, they don't have to know me. it's just a tired old strategy--"don't listen to the emotional/hysterical women, you know how they get with their hormones and feelings and things."
starvingartist wrote:
if this site didn't have rules specifically against it, and if they could do it anonymously, my inbox would be full of rape and death threats right now.
Would it? If people really wanted to do that, it only takes a minute to open a dummy account and fire of a PM; that it hasn't happened seems to put to lie your poor faith in WP's membership. [b]yes, it would. and you know that the mods are aware of such "sock-puppet" accounts and ban them as soon as they are ferreted out, as do many other members here, so they would know there wouldn't be much use in trying that.
starvingartist wrote:
ask any woman who has ever published anything IRL or online about feminist issues and you will hear the same thing--no matter how "un-radical" and sensible and not full of hatred of men are the things they write. being a feminist and trying to create positive change for women makes you a target.
The internet if full of trolls, so what? There's also some evidence that the harassment faced by women online is being exaggerated:
http://reason.com/archives/2014/02/02/i ... r-on-women one article calling into question another article is evidence that women don't really face crazy amounts of sexism online? do i really need to cite a long list of articles/research papers supporting that women are sexually harassed on the internet significantly more than men are? they certainly wouldn't be hard to find, as opposed to your one article. but i think you know that.
starvingartist wrote:
just recently a student feminist activist at a university here in ontario was beaten one evening after stepping out the front door of her house on the night before an MRA event that was supposed to be happening at the school that she and other activists had been opposing. one of the male activists saw her online and that she was planning to be involved in a protest of the event he was supporting, and so he tracked her down and beat her up in her front yard (he knew her name and said it to her before he hit her--presumably to make sure she was the right woman to beat--he was unknown to her, but he had her name and address). this is what we get when we try to have a voice.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/queen-s-student-attacked-after-threats-over-feminist-activities-1.2589321
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/queen-s-student-attacked-after-threats-over-feminist-activities-1.2589321
I remember this, there was no actual connection between the attack and the victim's feminism, she just speculated that it was the cause, as was discussed the first time this was posted to WP:
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt255241.html
That narrative sounds familiar somehow...there was enough of a connection for the police to be investigating the connection. he was a stranger to her, yet knew her name and beat her up the night before the MRA event--surely that is all coincidence.
24 May 2014, 3:36 pm
24 May 2014, 3:52 pm
24 May 2014, 4:04 pm
24 May 2014, 4:15 pm
24 May 2014, 4:19 pm
24 May 2014, 4:22 pm
24 May 2014, 4:22 pm
24 May 2014, 4:34 pm
24 May 2014, 4:43 pm
24 May 2014, 4:51 pm
24 May 2014, 5:13 pm
24 May 2014, 7:08 pm
24 May 2014, 7:30 pm
starvingartist wrote:
people also don't like to be dismissed by someone to whom they feel attracted and entitled. some get angry, abusive, and violent when they are denied female attention. and it's funny that you say this, because other feminists on this site have told me the reason they stopped trying to make a difference in regard to sexism is because of the blowback they got, and how discouraged they felt that the men here would ever change.
Yet other feminist do just fine. Again, what makes you and these anecdotal feminists different from the ones that don't get the same flak?
starvingartist wrote:
but i'm sure the reaction to me is really just because i'm a horrible b***h personally, and has nothing to do with me speaking out about things other people are very uncomfortable talking about.
It could easily be a combination of the two.
starvingartist wrote:
no, they don't have to know me. it's just a tired old strategy--"don't listen to the emotional/hysterical women, you know how they get with their hormones and feelings and things."
Even paranoids have enemies. Just because other people have fallaciously used the emotional women attack in the past does not mean that attacking your reasoning as emotion driven is automatically false.
starvingartist wrote:
yes, it would. and you know that the mods are aware of such "sock-puppet" accounts and ban them as soon as they are ferreted out, as do many other members here, so they would know there wouldn't be much use in trying that.
Really? Even obvious sock puppets get in a few posts before they're spotted, as it takes just that, posting, for them to come to anyone's attention. Someone just wanting to send you a nasty PM would never need to expose themselves, just register, send the message, and walk away, the account is effectively disposable as they're not intending to use it for long term trolling. In fact, exactly that happens fairly regularly, so the fact that it has not happened would seem to indicate that it's not something likely to occur on WP.
starvingartist wrote:
one article calling into question another article is evidence that women don't really face crazy amounts of sexism online? do i really need to cite a long list of articles/research papers supporting that women are sexually harassed on the internet significantly more than men are? they certainly wouldn't be hard to find, as opposed to your one article. but i think you know that.
It sure beats the zero articles you've posted in support of your position(s), and in fact, it actively debunks a number of the very studies you're likely to present.
starvingartist wrote:
there was enough of a connection for the police to be investigating the connection. he was a stranger to her, yet knew her name and beat her up the night before the MRA event--surely that is all coincidence.
By "enough of a connection' you mean she told the police that she was a feminist and they followed up on it because they had nothing else and that's what they're supposed to do? That's all the "evidence" you need, huh?
