Female Bloggers Cry Rape?
I published this piece this afternoon on Dale and co.It has attracted a string of retweets by the predictable few, and some interesting comments.
The consensus of opinion seems to be that because I have never been threatened with rape by any of my commentators, I should have either kept my mouth shut or shown solidarity with my female colleagues.
In the interests of fairness, I am putting this on my own site so that those who wish to abuse me have an extra opportunity to do so – they could however, merely join in with an interesting debate.
Should abuse directed towards female bloggers be seen as misogynistic and outlawed, is it just a problem for women, should all abuse be outlawed? Is there something special about women that they should receive extra protection? Would the blogosphere be a better place without the abuse?
You decide.
What arrant, aberrant nonsense is this? What risible ridicule? Convoluted feminism on stilts. Nonsense on stilts, say I.
Helen Lewis-Hasteley started this particular hare running in the New Statesman on Thursday, aided and abetted by several other female bloggers, and Vanessa Thorpe is in the Observer today fanning the flames.
Allegedly, ‘women writers across the political spectrum’, some of the ‘best known names in journalism’ no less, are hesitating to make their little voices heard in the blogosphere because the big bad men are being beastly to them. Misogynism is the battle cry.
The Observer features a wide eyed picture of our ‘Laurie’ looking like a helpless rabbit caught in the headlights to illustrate its piece, pontificating in her fluffy way to perpetuate the illusion that all internet trolling is undertaken by ‘bully boys in lonely bedrooms’.
Apparently all the women quoted have been ‘threatened with rape’ by their trolls. Anonymous trolls. Trolls who claim to be male, as the writers claim to be female.
Nobody has ever threatened me with rape – not even with a paper bag over my head, before you take the opportunity for that jibe.
I have been roundly abused for my views; pulled up short by every pedant in the universe for my aberrant apostrophes; ridiculed for my lack of knowledge on specialist subjects, educated, entertained, enlightened, empowered, every e-factor you care to name, but never, never, have I been subject to our Laurie’s claim that ‘a woman must be sexually appealing to be taken seriously as a thinker’ – just as well!
I have been called an ‘old woman’ – ‘tis true, I am – does that become ‘feminist abuse’ simply because it refers to me as a woman? Surely shades of the Steve Williams politically correct shenanigans whereby referring to Tiger Woods as black makes every comment ‘racist’ and as such only able to be alluded to in the main stream media as ‘racist abuse that we won’t repeat here’.
Eleanor O’Hagen says that ‘misogynist abuse is an attempt to silence women’ – thus sailing magnificently past the whole point of the Internet – you can’t be silenced! All you have to do is keep on writing; you are not subject to the vagaries of an editor, you can just pump out a never ending stream of drivel if you wish – and I do so wish. She says that ‘Gendered abuse is a form of hate-speech’ and should be taken seriously by the police.
Where to start on that one! For a start, dear Eleanor, you don’t know whether your abuser is male or female, you only know what they claim to be – you could be a pit bull terrier tethered to a pole in Preston for all I know – I only know that you claim to be a female called Eleanor, and your abusers claim to be male.
What are the police supposed to do when they track down the IP address of your abuser and discover that it is actually another one of the coven of left wing writers who are currently lobbying for a lack of free speech for anyone claiming to be male? Johann Hari famously claimed to be a variety of people male and female in order to silence his critics – was he alone in his tactics?
Is there something about left wing bloggers that attract this sort of abuse – is it being a Libertarian, a member of a famously foul mouthed fraternity no less – that has protected me from these sexually charged e-mails and on line comments that are quoted? Is it perhaps deference to my age – I doubt it, for I initially took great care not to make comments alluding to my age, believing that this would make it more difficult to be taken seriously in the world of politics which seemed to be mostly young?
Sarah Pederson produced an authoritative study of Gender Differences in British Blogging in 2007. Slightly out of date now, and ironically in response to yet another Observer article on women who blogged entitled “Confessional bloggers—the women whose sexploits reached thousands of readers” – could it provide us with a clue?
Are some female bloggers subconsciously more concerned with being seen as women than as bloggers? Does their desire to be seen as a vulnerable community shine through in their writing and attract hostility?
She quotes an even earlier study (Herring 1993) which proposed that in direct contrast to a democratic, gender-blind utopia, other users were regularly able to infer the gender of posters on the basis of features of these styles and therefore react to posters on the basis of their presumed gender.
In my own case, the name of my blog was in direct response to the fact that it was a nickname by which I was known by a range of readers who would be interested to know where I had disappeared to from another blog. I hadn’t even considered the ramifications of the blog bearing a female name – Anna Raccoon.
I only know that I am currently probably the most high profile independent female political blogger – and nobody has ever threatened, nor even offered, to rape me. Nor kill me. Nor leave me ‘frightened to leave my house in case they know where I live’.
They have richly taken me to task for my views; perceived inconsistencies; all manner of faults. One blogger in particular devoted an article virtually every month to my perceived inadequacies as a blogger, tearing apart everything I wrote. That is the strength and nature of the internet.
That they have sometimes referred to the fact that I am female whilst doing so is no reason to silence them. Nor would I ever want it to – I learn every single day from my commentators – especially the ones who disagree with me.
I will concede that at one time I was subject to – not personal abuse – but someone trying very hard to identify me, or rather my family, for malicious reasons; it came at a time when I was seriously ill and unwilling, rather than unable, to cope with it. I did shut the blog for a few weeks. I didn’t shut up for long though.
It will take a damn sight more than abuse referring to the fact that I am female to prise my cold dead hand off this keyboard, and I am utterly shocked that that a series of lily livered women should be claiming that they have all given up writing for the main stream media – ‘the worst letters were filtered out before they reached me’ no less – because of on-line abuse. Grow up!
November 19, 2011 at 08:25
-
November 17, 2011 at 03:54
-
Excellently written article!! I haven’t had much in the way of trouble with
internet trolls, but I feel that if they, the “victim”, are willing to resort
to crying rape threat to silence someone, then they should get off of the
internet. Really.
My only response to a troll is to use their logic against them. It gives me
a laugh every time.
-
November 10, 2011 at 17:42
-
I think the fact that some people need to threaten violence on blogs sites
just shows their limitations. I went to an ordinary comprehensive school, yet
my command of English Language is sufficient to allow me to disagree with
someone without threatening violence.
Usually a well placed acid tongue
does the job!
Just look at Ian Hislop in action
- November 8, 2011 at 00:40
-
The old memory may be a bit creaky but I remembered a book I read many
moons ago that pictures what the feminist movement are striving for. If it is
so they forgot to read the end or they think it won’t happen to them.
It was written in 1897 by Sir Walter Besant. I got my copy years ago from a
second hand bookshop for 10p, but if anyone is interested it is available in
epub from http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=127214
The Revolt of Man
… everybody had learned about the Great Transition, and the way in which
the transfer of Power, which marked the last and greatest step of
civilisation, had been brought about: the gradual substitution of women for
men in the great offices; the spread of the new religion; the abolition of the
monarchy; the introduction of pure theocracy, in which the ideal Perfect Woman
took the place of a personal sovereign; the wise measures by which man’s rough
and rude strength was disciplined into obedience,-all these things were mere
commonplaces of education.
For those using Firefox browser there is EPUBReader add-on that will
allow reading and saving in the browser.
- November 7, 2011 at 21:01
-
Is it cos I’s a woman?
- November 7, 2011 at 20:05
-
Well said Ms Raccoon, too many bullying women inventing slights. Why they
do it heaven knows.
- November 7, 2011 at 19:17
-
I’ve seen the drama around this. Note that all the people blogging about
how awful this is are self-identified feminists. Note that you can’t read a
feminist blog for more than ten mins without encountering a piece about rape
and how awful it is. Consider that these respondents wish to express their
displeasure in the most venal manner possible.
Face it, the reason these women are getting emails full of ‘I RAEP U! LOL!’
is because it’s such an easy way to evoke a negative emotional reaction from
the reader. By blogging that they are upset by this, they’re just confirming
what the senders already knew. Doubtless the frequency of such messages will
increase in light of this admission. Still, most feminist sites are echo
chambers that wish only to preach to the choir about how rights end where my
pwecious feelings begin, so it’s not as though this activity is harming the
debate.
- November
9, 2011 at 21:54
-
They choose rape because they think it is unanswerable. And indeed, if I
were to suggest that there’s been an unwarranted moral panic over rape*, or that being murdered
is worse, or that a man might be able to understand what being raped
is like, that the number of threats – or threateners – might not be as great
as is being made out…if I were to suggest any of this I immediately look
(and feel) pretty hard-hearted.
It’s taboo. And they are cynically using this fact to play politics. We
don’t know the extent of the problem yet – and now we won’t be able to,
because of the current fuss about it. They’ve jumped to conclusions before
we’ve been able to see any evidence.
*600 convictions per year? not that many. So the stats are inflated with
unbelievable lack of scientific rigor, and noone calls them up on it….All of
a sudden the Guardian claim it’s 50,000 a year
- November 7, 2011 at 18:31
-
Probably the best way to deal with trolls is just to ignore them. If they
are attention-seeking, they will be frustrated and go elsewhere. If they are
just plain ignorant, their comments will be judged and disregarded by those
seeking sensible debate. If they are genuinely and continually threatening,
inform the police without making any comment about it on the blog.
By sticking labels on them, and rising to them in the way that Laurie Penny
and others have done, the trolls have in a sense won; they’ve got a reaction.
They’ll probably redouble their efforts in consequence.
Just ignore them. Their outpourings clearly deserve no serious
attention.
- November 7, 2011 at 17:38
-
November 7, 2011 at 16:47
- November 7, 2011 at 13:36
-
Anna, the only dismaying thing about your blog is that you take so many
words to express yourself. In fact, you are a bit of a windbag. You would talk
anyone with nefarious intentions to sleep, long before any action.
- November 7, 2011 at 14:17
-
Cunning stunt, eh?
- November 7, 2011 at 14:32
-
Nah. Typical male obsession with length over quality, I’m afraid. Same
goes for previous post.
-
November 7, 2011 at 20:01
-
Don’t think they’ve got the hang of this topic lark. It’s not a Sun
headline like “PHWOAR WHAT A SCORCHER” or “GOTCHA!” We readers want depth
and background so we can debate and take the piss out of each other (that
last bit’s not actually in the blog guidelines YET but my powers of
persuasion are the talk of taverns from Woolwich to
Woomera).
- November 7, 2011 at 22:16
-
The replies are very restrained, so far. Do we want DEFCON2?
Yeah, we
want DEFCON2.
To be rude to your host is uncouth
Especially with falsehoods not
truth
So go take a hike
Up your arse stick a pike
‘Till your
sphincter’s impaled on it’s tooth
- November 7, 2011 at 11:00
-
I agree with the general point you’re making, Anna. However, your article
is verbose – it is about ten times as long as it needs to be . . .
- November 7, 2011 at 11:58
- November 7, 2011 at 10:17
-
Dear Anna
As a matter of gallantry, I offer to rape you. There! You cannot claim that
it has not happened any more. Of course, to turn it into any chance of
reality, I will have to get my wife’s permission first.
This is almost directly comparable with ambulance chaser’s syndrome, except
that they are adding the cause themselves. Do people get out of bed and think,
“What kind of victim can I be today?”
- November 7, 2011 at 10:21
-
You are too, too kind. I shall have a word with Mr G first of
course…..
- November 7, 2011 at 10:43
-
Ah! But I don’t think you should be telling me that. Otherwise, the
sense of violation may become diminished… and that just wouldn’t do.
- November 7, 2011 at 10:15
-
Spot on, Ms. Raccoon. The ridiculous linguistic contortions of the right-on
press were, for me, exemplified by ‘The Times’ treatment of the John
Terry/Anton Ferdinand teacup-storm last week. Reporting verbatim what Terry is
reported to have shouted, the paper very carefully printed “f****** black
c***”. Thus they left in clear the single word deemed to be abusive, and
asterisked out the two words which, however coarse and unnecessary, would not
have led to the fatuously self-important Police and FA enquiries.
- November 7, 2011 at 02:43
-
I am genuinely enjoying the debate here and on Iain Dale’s site, even
though I mostly disagree with Anna.
May I make two points that I think have been missed, or underplayed, by
commenters here.
First, I don’t think anyone is suggesting censorship of most of these
comments – perhaps excepting those which contain actual threats of violence
and posting of home addresses or the like. I hear this as a call to speak out
when someone makes a misogynistic attack, to show that those views are
unrepresentative and not accepted, even tacitly, by the wider community. In
the same way as racist comments, which were (relatively) common a few decades
ago, are no longer culturally acceptable and would attract opprobrium if made
in blog comments or any similar forum. If someone really does believe that
people of a particular sex or race are inferior, they should have the freedom
to say so, but they should also expect lots of people to loudly disagree with
them.
Second, there is in practice a difference between the responses that (some)
women and (most) men get on their blogs. Both women and men quite rightly get
comments disagreeing with their points of view. Nobody is objecting to that.
But we rarely, if ever, see the kind of threatening or demeaning personal
attacks on men – even men with polarising views such as George Monbiot or
James Delingpole – that we see on many women.
No, not all women get comments like this – thank goodness – but quite a lot
do, and virtually no men suffer in the same way. Is it just a difference in
kind, as SadButMadLad says? It doesn’t feel like that to me. There are
prevalent cultural asymmetries between how men and women are treated in our
culture (as there are between other groups) which mean that specific acts of
speech may legitimately be seen differently when targeted against one group
than the other.
A commenter who refers to a male writer as a pr*** may be revealing an
equal lack of confidence in the logic of their argument as one who calls a
female writer a c***, but these words and their usage both exist within a
cultural context. The attack on the woman does carry a different meaning, and
is likely to be both written and read in a different way, than the
corresponding attack on the man.
We should certainly speak out against both the above examples – not to
censor either, but to maintain the pressure for more intelligent and less
personally targeted debates. But unfortunately it does seem that women are
more likely to be subject to attacks of this kind, and that they are more
likely to carry a stronger and more negative impact, than are men.
- November 7, 2011 at 07:40
-
First, Comments are already censored; it is called moderation. If you put
yourself out there in a public debate, then you will get the good, bad and
the ugly. Any good site has a moderator who removes comments that are
considered offensive.
Social networks (Facebook) are more problematic as there are no site
moderators to keep commentators playing nice; the user has to be the
moderator. Social media still has a few bugs to work out in moderating
offensive comments.
Second, So basically your saying women are weak and men are strong? I’ve
seen abusive language thrown at men on the internet and seen men get upset
over those comments. Abusive people have a knack at identifying the right
buttons to press. I know women who don’t like the “c” word, but will ignore
the comment and it doesnt get to them. And how would a man react if someone
started throwing the “pedo” word around?
Offensive comments are offensive comments, gender is not the issue you
are trying to make it.
Also, there appears to be an assumption that its men writing abusive
comments. I think you might be surprised how many male commentators are
actually female (and vise versa), and that its not unknown for someone to
post using more that one alias/id.
- November 7, 2011 at 07:55
- November 7, 2011 at 09:47
-
Just a little thing- what’s the difference between an “actaul threat of
violence” and a pretend one? And how do you tell?
- November 7, 2011 at 10:49
-
I have never really understood the use of c*** as a term of abuse between
men. C***s are, after all, lovely things; I can’t think of one that I
haven’t enjoyed, either in quiet contemplation or by more direct and
mutually interactive involvement. For all I retain the very fondest of
memories. For one man to use the word as the vilest of insults to another
seems entirely counter-intuitive.
- November 8, 2011 at 14:18
-
From a linguistics point of view, your comments are quite correct. There
are various linguistics theories that discuss the impact of context on
meaning to individuals and a group. Certainly I have a more negative and
condemnatory reaction to the ‘c’ word than any other swear word and I have
never used it myself.
If we assume that female bloggers are deliberately targeted and agree
that context is relevant – what then is an appropriate response? The person
making the comment can be a male or female – women are as aware of the
impact of language as men and if they wish to upset a female blogger what
better way? The female blogger can only control her response to these
thoroughly nasty comments. I would suggest that censoring ones-self or
(publicly) crying simply encourages trolls – they are getting a reward for
their behaviour.
- November 8, 2011 at 15:47
-
Bull. Practically the entire advertising world relies on mysandrist
commercials that give the impression that men are too stupid to make even
the simplest kind of purchasing decisions.
I always like to remember that behind every bad man there is a very bad
mother, and for that reason alone apparently “misogynistic” comments should
be permissible in any society that believes in anything approaching
free-speech.
-
November 8, 2011 at 16:46
-
I think I can agree that the advertising world uses narratives and
jokes that make fun of both women and men. Some of the jokes are funny and
some are not…. some are downright infuriating. We do live in a society
where speech is relatively free. Please note the ‘relatively’. Not even in
America, where freedom of speech is enshrined to a level not seen here, is
all speech free and permissable. And society has always had some words.
thoughts and ideas that are anathema to the majority. These words and
ideas change over time as society changes. If you wouldn’t say it in a
restaurant, at the school gate, in the pub…. why would you say it on the
internet? The blunt truth is that many of these so called ‘trolls’ are
spineless men and women hiding behind the excuse of ‘wind-up for a laugh’,
saying things they know are unacceptable in real life.
-
November 6, 2011 at 22:10
-
Anna,
Great article. The New Statesman link is being blocked as an ‘attack site’.
I kid you not.
-
November 6, 2011 at 21:16
-
Correlation does not imply causation.
Just because the female bloggers in the NS article state that they have
been picked on doesn’t mean that all female bloggers are being picked on. Anna
is just stating that from her experience the claim that 100% of female
bloggers are attacked in the way claimed is not true. Anna is not saying that
she isn’t attacked, just not in the way the other bloggers are.
What about male bloggers? Are Penny and co saying that their attackers
aren’t in the same league. I’m sure they aren’t trying to imply that male
bloggers aren’t attacked. Male bloggers are attacked just as much as female.
Maybe the method of attack might be different but just because it is doesn’t
mean anything special about female bloggers. It’s only a sign of the
differences between the sexes.
Being a blogger means that you will be attacked for your views – it’s not a
matter of if, it’s a matter of when. As SBC says, hiding behind a screen of
anonymity allows trolls to attack with impunity even though they themselves in
real life are meek as a mouse.
I personally have met a character who in the virtual world was a real pain
in the ass, obnoxious, wound every one up but when you met him in the real
world was the nicest person you could ever meet. The two characters were total
opposites.
- November 8, 2011 at 12:00
-
I agree SBML: ‘correlation does not imply causation’
I am a feminist…. and I won’t be having any nonsense about these women
being representative either of women in general or feminists or bloggers.
It is also perfectly feasible that the abusive bloggers are women.
I take exception to the idea that women are identified by their typing
style – I’ve frequently been taken for a man. The fact that I have short
hair and wear DM’s is entorely besides the points
Funnily enough , the only time I have withdrawn a comment from a
discussion thread was on a professional web-site in response to a properly
identified woman who was being a complete cow. I didn’t want anyone I knew
thinking I was seriously engaged in a discussion with her! Bloomin mortified
I was.
- November 8, 2011 at 15:25
-
It must be remembered that attacking and insulting men is OK. They’re all
macho and are used to being attacked so no real harm.
Women, however, are delicate flowers that must be cosseted and deferred
to at all time even when they scribe idiotic paens to communism. Laurie is
the worst of the modern tribe, self centred, spoilt and well paid to write
guff.
It is strange, I always thought feminism was about equality.
- November 6, 2011 at 20:56
-
Anna, you have set the cat among the feminist pigeons with this.
I think most of their problems stem from the fact their writings show their
hatred of people that don’t believe as they do especially the male of the
species. They rail against their perceived and actual impotence and, in doing
so, get a lot of people angry at them.
I know one woman, an ardent British feminist, who can’t understand French
wives that try and please their husbands. What she doesn’t understand is how
to be feminine and how to lead by following.
Keep on stirring the pigeon pie.
- November 6, 2011 at 19:41
-
Anna writes
“nor even offered, to rape me”.
Blatant solicitation …..
- November 6, 2011 at 19:56
- November 6, 2011 at 19:03
-
Anna writes
“nor even offered, to rape me”.
I’m astonished. Has
nobody any consideration these days?
Sorry, O best beloved, I am full of
consideration but well past my ‘use by’ date!
- November 6,
2011 at 18:24
-
“…I learn every single day from my commentators – especially the ones
who disagree with me.”
Amen!
- November 6, 2011 at 17:41
-
As someone who has been stalked/intimidated/harassed for 1 year by the same
troll (+ her sock accounts) & her cronies, I feel some sympathy for anyone
who is being trolled. I do often moan to my followers about the slanderous
& downright upsetting stuff my stalker troll sends me on daily basis but
I, in real life, am not affected by rude words said online. However, if I felt
it was too much to handle, I`d either contact the authorities or get off the
internet. PennyRed is an instigator, a me me me person. This is just another
of her attention seeking stunts.
- November
6, 2011 at 18:25
-
A less than cunning stunt..?
I’ll get me coat!
- November 6, 2011 at
18:57
- November 6, 2011 at 17:31
-
A point well made is surely devoid of gender bias.
I see no problem, can’t understand why anyone sinking to ad hominem attacks
would be taken seriously & think Laurie Penny’s scribblings are as
hilarious as they are misguided.
- November 6, 2011 at 17:13
-
I read some of comments over there, then gave up. They utterly missed your
point, Anna. And you spelt it out very clearly.
-
November 6, 2011 at 17:09
-
Their stance is a step down from “I’ll sqweem and sqweem until I’m
sick”
- November 6, 2011 at 17:00
-
Typical Lefties – they shoot their mouths off every time someone pulls them
up on their attitudes and their recieved, moronic “wisdom” – if they can’t
take the heat they should get out of the kitchen!
- November 7, 2011 at 14:47
-
I do find myself wondering sometimes just what is in the ‘make-up’ of
Lefties that so often leads them – whether male or female – to complain that
“it’s not fair, someone is arguing with me…please stop them.”
- November 7, 2011 at 15:03
-
Surely you mean they should get back into the kitchen.
- November 8, 2011 at
17:19
-
Nah, that’s where all the heat is. Besides, people in kitchens actually
work.
- November 6, 2011 at 16:25
-
“I only know that I am currently probably the most high profile independent
female political blogger”
You mean you’re not a 200lb trucker from Georgia ? I didn’t think there
were any real women on the intrawebz.
Truly we live in an age of miracles and wonders.
- November 6, 2011 at 16:41
- November 6, 2011 at 16:25
-
Great post, Anna.
I often wonder what Harriet would have been up to if she had stayed in
power. I honestly think that she might have attempted the reasoning that a lot
of convicted male sex offenders are critical of feminist viewpoints.
Therefore, criticising feminism must be the cause of sex attacks against
women. Therefore, disagreeing with anything that a feminist says should be
regarded as hate speech and made illegal. Check mate.
- November
9, 2011 at 21:11
-
Harriet Harmann actually scares me. I mean not me personally but the fact
that she got to say the things she said and do the things she did from so
near no. 10.
I guess I had some remnant of the idea that those in power might have
some sense – laughable I know, but…
-
November 6, 2011 at 15:48
-
Undoubtedly the Internet would be a better place minus the abuse.
But Voltaire takes precedence for me. We do not need any more restrictions
on our freedoms.
Bear in mind that I do report credible threats to the police and log IP
addresses just to be on the safe side.
- November 6, 2011 at 15:53
- November
9, 2011 at 21:25
-
This remark sums up most of my internet rants on the subject of Anna’s
essay. Let’s not erode our freedoms on the basis of a few tirades from
extreme feminists.
I’d also point out that Helen Lewis-Hasteley, Laurie Penny, and Cath
Elliot – some of the people making the case for the prosecution – all have a
grasp of reality, logic and statistical science that is second to…well
everybody else really. Yet fearlessly they pretend to deploy all three to
pursue a political agenda – more power, choice, and freedom for women and
less – MUCH less – for men.
I know how saying all the above practically constitutes ‘hate-speech’ (a
ridiculous made-up phrase). A lot of people shrink from using expressions
like “extreme feminist” – but that is what they are. Far too much attention,
in both academic life and journalism, is given to people who can’t give a
straight argument, because talking to them is simply the same as talking to
any other politician – in this case rather fanatical ones.
Once you understand this, you realise what much of the current UK
feminist movement has been taken over by.
{ 56 comments }