Talking to white dudes about feminism
Jan. 23rd, 2016 10:33 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyI 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?
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?
no subject
Date: 2016-01-23 09:57 pm (UTC)First of all, I disagree that the term SJW has any real meaning. It attributes a level of cohesion and organization that, in almost three decades of involvement with left-wing activism, I am unconvinced exists. But if we're taking SJW to mean "broadly involved in various progressive causes," it's a meaningless term but I guess it's one we're stuck with. There's a big difference between a 17-year-old Tumblrista who's just discovered intersectionality and, say, a long-term labour organizer. One hopes that the former one day evolves into the latter. We were all stupid and dramatic at 17, were we not?
Let's exclude Cologne for a moment, as it's kind of a separate thing and I see
Let's talk about the areas in which reactionaries (a term nearly as broad and meaningless as SJWs, but for the purpose of discussion people who are interested in either maintaining the status quo or going backwards to a time when marginalized people had fewer rights) have control: Government, law enforcement, military, financial institutions, corporations, educational institutions, and media. Now, there are certainly left-wing professors—probably even most professors—but how many left-wing university chancellors or boards of directors? Leftish governments, but still beholden to a set of corporate influences and bureaucracy. Journalists, certainly, but not the owners of papers and networks.
There is also power and control at a personal level, but I'll put that aside for a bit.
Let's talk about the areas in which SJWs have control. Tumblr. Certain parts of Twitter. Campus groups. Unions.
In almost every incident you mention, the worst consequence of SJWs going too far is hurt feelings. Maybe a cancelled or disrupted speaking engagement. Maybe traffic is a little slow because of a protest. They may have some silly ideas and overuse the term problematic, but none of them are picking up guns and shooting people. Or making decisions about who lives and who gets sent back to Syria to die. Or even costing people jobs and livelihoods.
The debate is framed as one of two equal sides, with moderation being the ideal, but in fact there is nothing equal about it. On one side, someone gets called a bad name and has their feelings hurt. On the other side, someone gets killed.
SJWs may have opinions I disagree with (though not most) but the consequences of their actions are nonexistent. Therefore, I don't bother with them much when they're wrong beyond a gentle correction, as they have no influence, no power, and will likely grow out of the sillier things. To take the "calling ISIS an Islamic terrorist group is bigoted," that is obviously a stupid statement, but no one sensible is going to be paying attention to it.
Or, to paraphrase Atwood: "Reactionaries (and moderates) are afraid that SJWs will laugh at them. SJWs are afraid that reactionaries (and moderates) are destroying the entire world."
no subject
Date: 2016-01-23 10:35 pm (UTC)SERIOUSLY THIS. There's no moral superiority to be found in a giant list of "teach the controversy" bullet points when one side is a bunch of kids working out their feelings on Tumblr and the other side is creating government policy and starting wars. Jesus.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-23 10:38 pm (UTC)I have lost maybe days of sleep looking at cat gifs. DAYS.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-23 11:47 pm (UTC)People were massacred at Charlie Hebdo, there were mass killings in Paris, and yet still the reaction across the internet is "terrorism has no religion". There are people who are dead and yet the trend whenever anyone questions Islamist ideology (not Islamic religion, extremist ideology) is cries of 'racism'.
So no, I believe it might actually be worse than hurt feelings at this stage.
And we have crazy numbers of people in the UK going to join ISIS in Syria. Even several cases of women trying to take their children out there. Girls going out there to be married to ISIS members. These are people from good families. Muslim parents are horrified to discover their children joining terrorist groups and trying desperately to stop them leaving or to get them to come home.
But apparently "terrorism has no religion", so I guess it's all fine.... *shrugs*
Perhaps you're right and all I'm REALLY getting by spending time on Tumblr is a greater exposure to powerless idiots. But when REAL problems are dismissed by SJWs, I can't help but feel that they are doing real harm. That their disinformation is a real problem.
I feel I should note that for me the term SJWs applies essentially to left-wing trolls. (I get the impression that some here think I am using the term to refer to anyone opposing racism, sexism, etc. or promoting feminism, which would mean I was aiming some strong criticism against myself, y'know?)
But my argument wasn't actually that SJWs are powerful (outside of the internet), but simply that the backlash against them is deserved. I think I can still stand by that.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-24 12:07 am (UTC)The worst that can be said about the SJW response (every time I type that, I'm grating my teeth) to Islamic terrorism is that they don't get as outraged about it as mainstream white people. But given that there is lots of outrage about it, I don't think there's a big loss, and like I said, no one's actually putting them in charge.
It should be noted also that if Western governments had listened to the irritating SJWs in the first place and avoided Middle Eastern adventurism in the early 2000s, ISIS would have nowhere near the influence it currently enjoys.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-24 12:23 am (UTC)All I've been saying is that SJWs on tumblr are downplaying the deaths of huge numbers of people by Islamist terrorism. They want to wish it all away, like those deaths don't matter.
While there were plenty of very sensible people (i.e. not SJWs) criticising the war on terror back in the 2000s, I'm not sure that would have been enough to stop ISIS's arrival. The correlation isn't strong. Certainly without Sadam Hussein in power Islamist terrorism is stronger in Iraq than it would have ever been otherwise, but that's because Saddam was a savage dictator who ruled with an iron fist. The fact remains that ISIS have been a long time coming and they can't be entirely dismissed as the direct result of UK and US foreign policy.
no subject
Date: 2016-01-24 04:50 pm (UTC)Back in the 2000s, you had Bush Did 9/11, which was far more stupid than that and counterproductive to everyone. But that fortunately died the death it deserved.
If you read about ISIS recruits, excluding those from Western countries, they are mainly the generation that grew up in a region destabilized by Western aggression. They're in it for the money and lack of other institutional options. The consequences of removing stable dictators and installing weak puppet governments were hardly predictable or unknown. They'd never have gotten the foothold they did without the foolish wars that the West blundered into.