Talking to white dudes about feminism

[sabotabby]

I just had a bunch of surprisingly productive discussions around feminism and harassment, spurred by the stupid verdict in the case of Gregory Alan Elliott, the latest Tropes vs. Women video, and the overall imbalance in what we mean when we talk about freedom of speech.

Both of these cases have a lot to do with how the law is unwilling (I almost typed "unable," but this isn't true—they're perfectly capable of understanding Twitter threats against cops) to take into account both gender dynamics and internet culture. Elliott was acquitted (and may go on to sue his victims) because they didn't act like perfect victims. Why, one might ask—and the judge did—would they block him and continue to respond to his tweets?

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these things work. I know, because I've had stalkers and trolls. There is no perfect way to engage with them. Your mother might have said, "ignore the bully and he'll go away," but you knew even as a child that this wasn't true.

Internet discussion is largely public. This means that if I am telling the truth and Igor the Troll is telling a lie, our discussion is witnessed by outsiders. A typical exchange might go something like this:

Igor: Obvious falsehood nevertheless believed by those who have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
Sabs: Bunch of facts in rebuttal.
Igor: Shut up you cunt bitch ill rape your eyesocket.

(If you think I'm exaggerating, you're naïve af. This is mild by comparison to some of the things I've seen.)

Now, a logical judge, not taking gender or power into account, is going to think, "well, she can block him, why doesn't she just block him?" But Igor is not going to shut up. And to an audience—because this is the internet, and there is always an audience—if I shut up, Igor looks like the winner.

This is something that just won't make sense unless you spend a lot of time around kids, which I do. If you show kids a political debate and ask them who won, the kids will not identify the person who said the most accurate facts. They will identify the person who was the loudest and who, preferably, spouted the most insults. The primary reason, I'd argue, why Trump is popular is because most Americans haven't progressed past the developmental stage that my kids are in.

So my choosing to block and ignore may be, to me (and the judge) a sensible move of self-preservation, to Igor the Troll, and everyone watching, it looks like he won. Now, I can choose to ignore this, and I probably would, but it will be galling. It will sit under my skin. Igor the Troll will not stop talking because I've stopped talking. He may go on to talk about me, to spread rumours and lies, and he's less likely to be challenged because sensible people don't bother.

I fully understand why Guthrie and Reilly wouldn't, in this circumstance, act like perfect victims and just ignore the scum harassing them. Why should they? Why does Elliott get freedom of speech and they do not? Why is it always down to the woman to run away, to withdraw, to not go out at that time of night wearing that skirt?

Anyway, one dude messaged me and said he didn't get feminists. Did we want equality or supremacy? He compared feminism to vegans, and how there are some vegans who just are, and some vegans who reminded you that they were vegan every five minutes.

I used to draw this distinction too, before I saw what was happening to a vegan friend of mine on Tumblr. She'd post a vegan recipe and immediately get anon hate. Was it any wonder that rather than be intimidated into silence, she'd get louder in response? That got me thinking to just how often omnivores remind us that they're omnivores—bacon memes, posting jokes about vegetarians murdering carrots—but this stridency is entirely invisible, because most people are omnivores. Vegans are perceived as more obnoxious about their dietary choices not because they are (I'm firmly convinced they're not) but because it's Other, and thus marked as a political statement, while eating meat is neutral and unmarked.

Dude admitted he was afraid of women, so I unpacked that. It's the old Margaret Atwood quote: "Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them." We went back and forth for about 45 minutes, at the end of which I think he got it a bit more.

I had a similar conversation with another young man who'd posted a "political correctness has gone too far; you can't say anything without being called a racist or a sexist, FREEZED PEACH"-type rant. Now, it's probably not a secret that I don't believe in freedom of speech—as in I don't believe that it exists, period, or can exist—but I questioned him on his consistency. Did he believe, for example, that ISIS sympathizers on Twitter should have free speech? Was he vigorously defending their rights to say what they liked? Of course, he wasn't, so I walked him through his own flawed assumptions about what was violent and what was peaceful. I don't think he agreed with me by the end—I wouldn't expect him to, as he's not the sharpest chisel in the toolbox—but he remained remarkably civil throughout and thanked me.

I don't always have the time or patience to educate people about power dynamics or feminism or anti-racism, and I tend towards the hairtrigger emotional at the best of times, but I'm kinda pleased with how these various discussions went. I mean, it stresses me out that we still gotta fight these stupid battles, but what else can you do?

Comments

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

Nobody has "covered up" the events in Cologne.

I wonder if the same people who are so concerned for the women of Cologne in this situation give the same amount of fucks about sexual assault in every other situation... because somehow, I don't think so.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

Perhaps "covered up" is the wrong term, though failing to release information is pretty close.

Surely the sexual assault in Cologne matters. I'm not sure I understand your response to this. I'm informed that when the events in Cologne were not being reported, far right sources spread not entirely trustworthy information. All the more reason why it is important for trustworthy media sources to report on information when it happens to establish the truth, rather than censoring themselves about stories that are clearly in the public interest.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

The BBC, among other outlets, reported on the story.

I'm informed that when the events in Cologne were not being reported, far right sources spread not entirely trustworthy information.

Far right sources tend to do that in every single event, regardless of reporting. The same thing happened when passports were found during the Paris attacks, even though there was actually no official information yet (who the passports belonged to, whether they were fake, etc. were still things being investigated) and some outlets were urging people to not jump to conclusions. Surprise, surprise, it turned out that the Egyptian passport belonged to a victim.

Surely the sexual assault in Cologne matters. I'm not sure I understand your response to this.

I didn't say it didn't matter. Please read the second paragraph of my post as many times as you need to understand.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

First off, the whole point is that the attacks were not reported in Germany when they happened. They happened on New Year's Eve, not on the 5th January, and even within Germany a decision was made not to let people know.

But yes, right wing reports on events are likely to be dodgy, which is why it makes sense to have trustworthy reports to refute them. As opposed to providing no official report on the incident for 4 days.

If you think the Cologne attacks matter then I'm not at all clear what we are disagreeing on here.

I'm also not sure why you think an Egyptian victim is some kind of refutation. What do you think we are discussing and why do you think we are on opposite sides of the discussion? I am honestly unsure of what stance you are taking on this topic or what stance you think I am taking.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

But yes, right wing reports on events are likely to be dodgy, which is why it makes sense to have trustworthy reports to refute them. As opposed to providing no official report on the incident for 4 days.

I'd say that what makes trustworthy reports stand apart is that they accurately report on the facts instead of jumping to conclusions (especially bigoted conclusions). A report like that takes time, especially in a case like this where there were several people involved and several attacks.

Considering that just a while ago there were 31 suspects and these included two Germans, one Serb, and one American citizen, it's pretty obvious to me that the issue might have instead been about the fact that there were/are tons of suspects, and not all of them from the countries you'd expect.

sabotabby has also made a good point re: public order and safety, and alarming people by releasing information without knowing what's going on first.

I'm also not sure why you think an Egyptian victim is some kind of refutation.

I'm pointing out the dangers of jumping to conclusions, which is what a bunch of people did when they first heard the reports about the Egyptian passport.

If you think the Cologne attacks matter then I'm not at all clear what we are disagreeing on here.

I think the difference here is the nuance of the discussion. We can both agree that the attacks matter while coming from very different places.

To clarify, I think the attacks matter because addressing sexual assault is important. Sexual assault and harassment are never ok. However, it also seems to me like the attacks are now being used as a tool to further a certain agenda. There's a long, long history of "oh no, these Other men are attacking and corrupting our women" being used to argue that these blanket Other group (black men, gay men, Jewish men, etc.) Do Not Belong. That is what it looks like right now, considering that these news are being used as an excuse to be wary of refugees as a whole -- when the issue is actually about rape culture and misogyny, which are things that exist in most cultures I can think of, white men are also capable of, and can affect women who aren't white (including women who are refugees right now).

That was my point a few comments up: a lot of the people who are complaining about this situation are people who are very glad to make excuses for rape culture every other day of the week, which is more than a little suspicious.

We seem to agree that the Left "making a deal with the devil" is an issue, but we clearly have different notions of what it looks like.

I don't want to make waves on sabotabby's journal, so I won't keep replying here when browngirl and sabotabby have explained it better than I could.

[sabotabby]

I agree and by all means, make waves.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

I'm always really afraid of squicking people out when I complain at someone in their comments, especially when it's not a lighthearted subject like MM:FR. :P

[sabotabby]

Nah, I like it when people comment on each other's comments.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I'd like to thank you for clarifying your position.

I mainly get my news in the mornings on the radio, so it seems there are developments in this case which I was not aware of. (Hence the 'huh what' response to the Egyptian passport thing. I hadn't heard about that part at all.)

As a side-note: even when double-checking a few details (since I wanted to state where news reports claimed the culprits allegedly originated from accurately) I found the horrible news that women were being advised to stay “more than an arm’s length away” from strangers. That's a statement from Cologne's mayor and thankfully there's a counter-statement from the federal minister criticising it, noting that we are not going back to the days where women are advised not to wear miniskirts.

I reveal my horror at that comment from the mayor of Cologne to further illustrate that, and I really hope you'll believe me, my main concern regarding this story IS the hurt experienced by the women involved, not the races of the assailants or the victims.

[sabotabby]

As a side-note: even when double-checking a few details (since I wanted to state where news reports claimed the culprits allegedly originated from accurately) I found the horrible news that women were being advised to stay “more than an arm’s length away” from strangers. That's a statement from Cologne's mayor and thankfully there's a counter-statement from the federal minister criticising it, noting that we are not going back to the days where women are advised not to wear miniskirts.

That's why we need strident feminism, even if it sometimes results in little Tumblristas typing, "DIE CIS SCUM" and complaining that your fave is problematic. Because here in Canada, when there is a high profile rape, we regularly have the cops advising young women to dress modestly and "take precautions," as if such a thing is possible. And it's earnest left-wingers gonna put a stop to that foolishness, not moderates.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I'm all for strident feminism. I don't think tumblr is generally doing it right.

To bring in a lighter note (and to further support your argument that the crazy arguments are just being posed by powerless idiots who can't really do any harm) there was one post I saw explaining an old ridiculous tumblr meme...

It was a gif of a cockatoo covered in melted chocolate. But half the people reblogging had no idea what in the hell it was:

When it was identified as a bird covered in chocolate there was a backlash against it because ZOMG Animal Cruelty!

Except that the original image was entirely made from computer graphics. No animals were involved. But this image was seemingly reblogged absolutely everywhere surrounded by outcries about cruelty to animals before anyone worked that out.

The issues surrounding this meme are summed up here:
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/chocolate-bird

The thing is, I feel like this way that daft things are blown way out of proportion is, to some extent, a problem across the whole internet and I feel like when it involves genuine issues in the news it has the potential to cause genuine harm. I hope I am wrong about that - and you are actually really helping to convince me that I was mistaken about it, in spite of how frustrating this exchange may have seemed.

[sabotabby]

Well, I think that's a cultural problem that spans the political spectrum. I agree that it's a problem—it's the root of anti-vax hysteria and other real-world, dangerous ideas.

I'd argue, though, it stems partially from technology but not entirely—after all, panics and hysterias that spread misinformation are nothing new; technology just accelerates it. More significant, though, is the decline of an intellectual ideological tradition. I may disagree, violently, with the conservatives of the past, but they had their intellectuals and their theories. As did the left. Today, there's an idea that thinking is best left to other people, the best position is somewhere in the middle, and how a political issue makes you feel or appear to others is far more important than rational arguments. I think this is worse on the right and supposed middle of the political spectrum, simply because that's where the power and influence is. The chocolate bird incident is actually quite useful because it makes intelligent people stop and think before they share an outraged post. Where it gets dangerous is "refugees did the Paris attacks" and then you have people not quite bright enough to be brownshirts burning down a refugee camp before the truth comes out. Whereas the animal rights activists hurt no one besides themselves because they just end up looking stupid on the internet.

[princealberic.livejournal.com]

Exactly.