"jokes that women just don’t get"

Morag

This one on one of my feeds this morning and I thought I'd share it.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/harassment-male-privilege-and-jokes-that-women-just-dont-get.html

Why is the internet a different place for men than for women? There are doubtless a number of contributing causes, but one of the major factors is that the internet is largely a male-constructed discursive space, and internet discussion norms often build on assumptions of male privilege.

Men build discursive spaces and discursive norms based on their own experience. And for instance, in a male-built discursive space, a threat of sexual violence may be viewed by male participants as an obvious joke. After all, the vast majority of men will never experience sexual violence in their lifetime. (Fewer than 4% of men will be sexually assaulted.) And so within the context of a male discussion on a World of Warcraft forum, for instance, it may seem entirely innocuous to use ideas of sexual violence to express one’s views on the game, or to use “rape” as a verb to describe one’s gameplay skills.

Women as a group have a vastly different experience with the idea of sexual violence. One in six women will be a victim of sexual assault during her lifetime. (Yes, some men are also sexual assault victims. But the numbers are overwhelmingly female — about 90% of sexual assault victims are women.) Rape is not an abstract idea or an obvious joke. For thousands of women, it is an immediate and extremely painful reality.

At one point during class I was talking about male privilege, and one student asked me to explain. He noted that he is a man and he doesn’t feel particularly privileged. In response, I noted my own privilege: “When I leave the building late at night, I don’t give a second thought to my safety as I walk to my car. If it’s ten at night, if it’s dark, I just assume that I’ll be fine. But for many women, there is a constant thought process: Do I find someone to walk me to my car? Is it safe at this hour? What are my options?” And then I asked, “who has gone through that train of thought recently?,” and every woman in the class raised her hand. And then they told stories: About avoiding parts of town; about setting their schedule in certain ways; about making sure that they had someone to walk them out; about being on their guard, all the time. The need to guard against the possibility of sexual assault is simply not part of most men’s everyday thought process, while it is a major part of many women’s everyday lived experience.

And the fact that as a man I don’t have to spend mental energy thinking about protecting myself from sexual assault is itself part of male privilege. One part of male privilege is that you never have to notice the ways in which you benefit from male privilege.

The same goes for statements about violence in general. In a male-dominated discursive space, it may be viewed as normal to make aggressive, threatening statements. However, men’s and women’s experiences with violence are also vastly different. One in four women in the United States has been a victim of domestic violence. Suddenly, the joke about wanting to punch somebody else isn’t so funny.

Women face these kinds of microaggressions on a daily basis, in all sorts of environments ranging from the workplace to the public sphere. And they seem to be especially prevalent (surprise) in discursive spaces built by and dominated by men. (It’s true that not all women struggle to express themselves in male-built discursive spaces, and some women develop real facility for the kind of bullying that sometimes passes for dialogue on the internet. But, as Danielle’s work makes clear, many don’t.)

And then when someone (almost always female) stands up against the male-constructed discursive norms in which threats of violence and sexual violence can be characterized as merely a joke, she is attacked for being oversensitive. These attacks are another instance of denying of the reality of women’s experiences. Male commenters discount women’s experiences as irrelevant if when those experiences don’t conform to male discussion norms. Feminist blogs have a term for this: Mansplaining, where a male interlocutor explains to a female writer that she ought to ignore her own experience and bow before his superior wisdom.

This discounting of women’s experience echoes equally problematic discussions that happen in the political arena, where male writers incredibly feel comfortable opining that sexual harassment probably doesn’t even exist, it’s all just something made up by overreacting women. For instance, here’s a direct quote from prominent male conservative writer John Derbyshire: “Is there anyone who thinks sexual harassment is a real thing? Is there anyone who doesn’t know it’s all a lawyers’ ramp, like ‘racial discrimination’? You pay a girl a compliment nowadays, she runs off and gets lawyered up.” Yes, Derbyshire is arguing that sexual harassment does not exist. Of course, this is a topic about which he has a vanishingly small likelihood of having any personal experience, since sexual harassment is overwhelmingly targeted at women. But I’ve never personally seen a zebra; therefore, they probably don’t exist.

Male privilege on the internet — or in law, or in society at large — isn’t going away any time soon. But let’s call it out, and let’s label it for what it is. When male interlocutors tell a female writer that she is overreacting and just isn’t getting the joke, they are speaking from a starting place of male privilege. They are assuming that casual threats of violence are something which can easily be shrugged off, and are ignoring the vast difference between lived experiences of men and women in America. And they are denying the reality of something which, in all likelihood, they don’t even understand.

Which Scalzi explains well in a

follow-up post:

" Underlying all of that is the basic set of advantages I get unearned by being what I am, i.e., a white male. I became aware of this fact only over time, by having this advantage set pointed out to me repeatedly by those who are not what I am. Which is a bad deal for those folks, to be sure — the highest life crisis of everyone else in the world is not, in fact, making the White Male understand what he gets unearned.

I suspect in my case it would have been even more work for the rest of the world if I hadn’t had the experience of growing up poor, which meant that every time I saw or read someone who’d never been poor expound obliviously on what was really going on with poor people, I had to fight back the urge to beat them to death with a hammer.

The experience of having to deal with people wealthsplaining poverty, and then trying to get them to listen to someone who had spent actual time in poverty, made it possible for me to more easily conceptualize the idea there were lots of subjects about which I had great potential to show my ass simply by opening my mouth."

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. So sit back. Calm down. Pay attention. Take notes. Learn. And stop denying the reality of women’s experience.

I think it's the best explanation of different experiences that the genders can have online and the reason why unfortunately but thankfully a forum like this exists.

Wibbs

Just more of a heads up folks. Debate is very welcome in a thread like this, whataboutery is not. Remember the title of the forum and all that. Thanks.

kerash

Do you not think it just highlights that there are a lot of assholes on the internet that happen to be men. We challenge, ignore or report them just as we would in life.
I don't see a huge amount of male privilege going on in the internet - but maybe i'm just in denial?

Logical Fallacy

And the fact that as a man I don’t have to spend mental energy thinking about protecting myself from sexual assault is itself part of male privilege. One part of male privilege is that you never have to notice the ways in which you benefit from male privilege.

While i understand what the guy is saying, as a male he is 4 times more likely to die a violent death than a woman (stats based on 2005 figures for America).

Given that the argument seems to be that women don't tend to joke about rape/assault because of the swing in stats for sexual assault and domestic violence would it not make sense to apply the argument to his WoW scenario that men will subconciously find themselves referring to crimes that don't affect them as badly rather than joke about one that does i.e murder?

By and large i agree with what he is saying, I don't think it's nice to have an opinion shouted down simply because of your gender, or to be told to "get over" something which may deeply affect you.

I do kind of embrace the theory that the internet leads to a faceless pack mentality and brings out the worst in some folk.

Links234

kerash wrote: »

I don't see a huge amount of male privilege going on in the internet - but maybe i'm just in denial?

LOL :pac:

Morag

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

While i understand what the guy is saying, as a male he is 4 times more likely to die a violent death than a woman (stats based on 2005 figures for America).

Those stats are heavily skewed by the % of men in america who are in the army and those in prison.

Logical Fallacy

Sharrow wrote: »

Those stats are heavily skewed by the % of men in america who are in the army and those in prison.

It doesn't really change the implication though...that it's a predominantly male thing to die a violent death. And if we concede that yes...it counts people in the army, i imagine the majority of people know someone in the army, and in an army as active as the US i imagine the majority of American's know someone who has lost a family member while serving in the armed forces if they have not lost one themselves.

It doesn't really change the point that the jokes may be subconciously about other ways to describe killing or murder.

I'm not here to derail, i just think that in these cases we need to think a little deeper about the reasons people do things rather than just sit in the "they are statistically unlikely to be affected by it" camp. I have no doubt that is a part of it, but it's not all of it.

kerash

Links234 wrote: »

LOL :pac:

What's the funny?!!

strobe

Sharrow wrote: »

Those stats are heavily skewed by the % of men in america who are in the army and those in prison.

They really aren't though. In 2008 10,582 men were murdered in the US versus 3,158 women. Soldiers KIA obviously aren't included in that and prison murders (male and female, state prison and local jail) in the US haven't been exceeding 100 a year since 2000 on.


Whatever about men joking about rape or sexual assault being not seen as a big deal amongst men because of 'male privilege' or what have you. The same can not be said for physical assault, violence, murder etc.

So while I do agree with a lot of what the article says I think Logic has a demonstrable and valid point about there being a little more to it than that.

Links234

kerash wrote: »

What's the funny?!!

because I think that on the internet, more than in real life, there's far more expression of rape jokes and what have you. it's funny because you say you don't see a huge amount of male privilege on the internet, where I see a huge amount more! after all, it's on the internet we hear the most amount of make me a sandwich 'jokes'

now this is coming from the perspective of a gamer. but I find that male privilege goes further on the internet and in gaming specifically. I've recently read an article from a woman who writes about why she doesn't feel welcome in online games, and it rings very true to my experience also, but the hostility of the comments was unreal and completely proved her point. I think that male privilege in this sense, assumes that games are solely for guys, and that women playing games are intruding upon that. you'd kinda assume that guys would be quite happy to see women playing, would be encouraging them, but no not really, the amount of sexist put-downs I see while gaming (aimed at me and at others) are much more than I'd see in real life. that's not to tar everyone with the same brush, but there appears to be a real contempt towards female gamers from some guys.

and that extends to constant assumptions that you can't actually be any good at games either. you know the saying that women have work twice as hard to be thought half as good as men? it goes double so in gaming. it doesn't matter how good you are, you're just not taken as seriously as one of the guys.

and it's not just that kind of self-centered arrogant viewpoint that games are for guys, it's assumed that games are for straight guys only. I remember just this year Dragon Age 2 came under huge criticism for having a gay romance in the storyline. the assumption from straight male gamers was that they're the center of the universe, and it never occurs to them that a game could cater for someone else but their demographic. one of the game's writers said: "They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want."

and I won't even get into the general use of homophobic language/using gay as a pejorative in gaming

and people are still angry over Carolyn Petit reviewing games on gamespot.

Ickle Magoo

While I agree "one of the major factors is that the internet is largely a male-constructed discursive space", "internet discussion norms often build on assumptions of male privilege" sounds like a very grandiose way of saying "base demographics of those who use vast swathes of the internet and their corresponding maturity and ignorance".

Being the majority and anonymous seems to trigger a kind of exaggerated chest-puffing competition - usually by making references to sex, women, money & throwing out aggressive/snotty posts for the funneh's. I'd say most of the time it reeks of immaturity and desperation of peer approval far more than any intellectualised and serious attempt to deliberately undermine women. Then again, the very fact that there was support for a forum where female posters weren't immediately overwhelmed due to the demographics and inundated with get in the kitchen and make sammiches-type puerile humour tells it's own story, regardless of the intentions behind such posts.

I also agree there are definitely mansplainers by the shovelfull, there are also chauvinists and even those with a rather obvious chip on their shoulder when it comes to women who never miss an opportunity to get a dig in - but the same could be said for female posters on the net, the difference is it's less pronounced simply because there are fewer of them.

All the end of the day, the only thing that's going to right the balance is getting more women online - but that's not going to happen any time soon if you need to have the sense of humour of a 12 year old and the hide of rhino to consider vast swathes of the internet worth spending time on...so the whole male constructed space where male privilege establishes norms all becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Logical Fallacy wrote:

Given that the argument seems to be that women don't tend to joke about rape/assault because of the swing in stats for sexual assault and domestic violence would it not make sense to apply the argument to his WoW scenario that men will subconciously find themselves referring to crimes that don't affect them as badly rather than joke about one that does i.e murder?

How likely is a man to be murdered though? While undoubtedly men are far more likely to be murdered than a woman, how likely is the average man to be murdered Vs the average women suffer serious sexual assault or rape? I think it's probably the likelihood and fear of sexual assault/rape and the affect that has on daily life for the average female compared with murder for the average male that he's getting at.

southsiderosie

Links234 wrote: »

one of the game's writers said: "They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance...

This, this, a million times this. It's this very attitude that kept popping up time and time again in the Feedback forum over the very existence of TLL (and thankfully, that seems to have ended). For the life of me, I could not understand why TLL was such an issue for some (quite relentless) male posters.

kerash

Links234 wrote: »

because I think that on the internet, more than in real life, there's far more expression of rape jokes and what have you. it's funny because you say you don't see a huge amount of male privilege on the internet, where I see a huge amount more! after all, it's on the internet we hear the most amount of make me a sandwich 'jokes'

now this is coming from the perspective of a gamer. but I find that male privilege goes further on the internet and in gaming specifically. I've recently read an article from a woman who writes about why she doesn't feel welcome in online games, and it rings very true to my experience also, but the hostility of the comments was unreal and completely proved her point. I think that male privilege in this sense, assumes that games are solely for guys, and that women playing games are intruding upon that. you'd kinda assume that guys would be quite happy to see women playing, would be encouraging them, but no not really, the amount of sexist put-downs I see while gaming (aimed at me and at others) are much more than I'd see in real life. that's not to tar everyone with the same brush, but there appears to be a real contempt towards female gamers from some guys.

and that extends to constant assumptions that you can't actually be any good at games either. you know the saying that women have work twice as hard to be thought half as good as men? it goes double so in gaming. it doesn't matter how good you are, you're just not taken as seriously as one of the guys.

and it's not just that kind of self-centered arrogant viewpoint that games are for guys, it's assumed that games are for straight guys only. I remember just this year Dragon Age 2 came under huge criticism for having a gay romance in the storyline. the assumption from straight male gamers was that they're the center of the universe, and it never occurs to them that a game could cater for someone else but their demographic. one of the game's writers said: "They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance. They don't see anything wrong with having things set up to suit them, what's everyone's fuss all about? That's the way it should be, any everyone else should be used to not getting what they want."

and I won't even get into the general use of homophobic language/using gay as a pejorative in gaming

and people are still angry over Carolyn Petit reviewing games on gamespot.

Ok thanks for clarifying that, I'd never be aware of any of that as I'm not a gamer.
When I do come across the likes of what you describe, I put it down to idiots hiding behind a username.

strobe

kerash wrote: »

Ok thanks for clarifying that, I'd never be aware of any of that as I'm not a gamer.
When I do come across the likes of what you describe, I put it down to idiots hiding behind a username.

Gaming is an odd thing. I used to play online games a bit a good while ago and used the same tag in a lot of them, one that clearly identified myself as Irish. I've never heard such consistent venom fired at Irish people in my life. One game in particular I don't think I ever once logged on where some slur or another wasn't thrown at me. It's a weird 'culture'.

BlueSmoker

Sharrow wrote: »

This one on one of my feeds this morning and I thought I'd share it.

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2011/11/harassment-male-privilege-and-jokes-that-women-just-dont-get.html



I think it's the best explanation of different experiences that the genders can have online and the reason why unfortunately but thankfully a forum like this exists.

I'm assuming what you quoted wasn't a joke, it explains why we don't get it, you seem to want to explain it to the nth degree. It might be funny after the first degree

Victor

I'm not sure if all of the social nuances in that article are strictly relevant to our situation. In the article and posts above, "rape" and "sexual assault" appear to be used interchangably.

Yes, there are people who are nasty to other people, but I don't think there is a monopoly one way or the other.

I don't game much these days, but I've not experienced much anti-female comment. I have probably experienced more anti-gay comment. But lets face it, a lot of games are about killing/beating the other person/team/monster/alien - that plays into male stereotypes much more than female ones.

Regarding sandwich making - it is an imported Americanism, that why one see it on the interent and not so much in real life.

Jack B. Badd

I really don't like the sweeping generalisation of "jokes that X don't get" where X is a defined group; women, black people, jews, etc.

On a purely anecdotal basis, I'm a woman & have heard jokes about rape and/or sexual assault that I thought were freaking hilarious but I've also come across not-so-subtle insults of a sexual nature online (not gaming) that were couched as jokes but were simply not funny to me. I don't think my sex/gender prevented me from getting them, I think they were genuinely not funny. They weren't jokes & no amount of calling them that was going to change that.

I do wonder how much of this aggressive anti-women sentiment online is translated into aggression in real life. I have to assume it's not zero tbh and given the not insignificant number of rapes & sexual assaults worldwide, surely it's understandable why women are concerned about it...

Victor

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I'm a woman

A woman called 'Jack'? Is this part of the solution as well as the problem? Part of the reason why women with "obviously female usernames" are seen as outliers and something to be poked fun at?

Scarinae

Victor wrote: »

A woman called 'Jack'? Is this part of the solution as well as the problem? Part of the reason why women with "obviously female usernames" are seen as outliers and something to be poked fun at?

People often mistake me for a guy too, which can make certain forums an easier place to post in. That is not why I chose this username, but I have noticed that I'm often treated differently on certain threads once people realise I'm female.

Jack B. Badd

Victor wrote: »

A woman called 'Jack'? Is this part of the solution as well as the problem? Part of the reason why women with "obviously female usernames" are seen as outliers and something to be poked fun at?

I assume the point of your question is whether or not I'm "hiding" my gender by choosing a male/gender-ambiguous username online? Tbh my usename has nothing to do with my gender, it's from a female character in a film - granted, she's a pre-teen girl trying to pretend she's a boy because she thought it would be easier given the circumstances but that didn't occur to me at the time :rolleyes:

I will admit, I haven't come across much sexual aggression towards me online and part of that may be because, unless I state it, my username doesn't advertise the fact that I'm female. Also I tend not to wade into the AH-style "bloody wimmin" threads because what's the point, really? I have encountered it towards other people though who are more forthright about their gender. Maybe I should ask the admins to change it to Jacqueline B. Badd for a few weeks and see how I get on...

Point being, I guess, is that I don't wear my gender on my sleeve online. I usually assume that means that others think that I'm neutral as regards gender (as I usually do when encountering a not-obviously gender-related username). Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe everyone else just thinks I'm a guy until I state otherwise.

Victor

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I assume the point of your question is whether or not I'm "hiding" my gender by choosing a male/gender-ambiguous username online? Tbh my usename has nothing to do with my gender, it's from a female character in a film - granted, she's a pre-teen girl trying to pretend she's a boy because she thought it would be easier given the circumstances but that didn't occur to me at the time :rolleyes:

I didn't actually know the origin of the name, but did realise it was ambiguous - as a personal name and an instruction ("Jack, be bad").

I don't think I would complain about any one individual being ambiguous with a name (after all, I am not a "Victor"). However, collectively, is there an issue? /me tries not to blame the victims.

Ickle Magoo

Victor wrote: »

I don't game much these days, but I've not experienced much anti-female comment.

Victor wrote: »

However, collectively, is there an issue? /me tries not to blame the victims.

Surely you have read enough posts on this forum alone, never mind the volume of articles and the reception they get to accept that yes, it does happen and yes, for some people it's an issue?!

Victor

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely you have read enough posts on this forum alone, never mind the volume of articles and the reception they get to accept that yes, it does happen and yes, for some people it's an issue?!

Are you saying that worried women who hide behind male/ambiguous usernames are the reason that some women get bullied? You are blaming the victim demographic for the damge to victims?

Ickle Magoo

I have no idea how you get from my quoting your two posts to that ^^

I was highlighting a common theme in your posts which appears to be a reluctance to accept/wish to question if there is any kind of issue despite several posts, thanks, and threads/articles from those who are at the receiving end of such attentions that you have surely read on this very forum, if not this thread - seems rather ironic to take that stance given the article in question.

Victor

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I have no idea how you get from my quoting your two posts to that ^^

OK, there may be crossed wires.

Victor wrote: »

I don't think I would complain about any one individual being ambiguous with a name (after all, I am not a "Victor"). However, collectively, is there an issue? /me tries not to blame the victims.

The issue I am referring to here is a group (in this case women, but gay men also referred to) going 'undercover' to avoid being abused, resulting in a situation where any woman who doesn't go 'undercover' is seen as an outlier and is at the receiving end of abuse from bullies.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Surely you have read enough posts on this forum alone, never mind the volume of articles and the reception they get to accept that yes, it does happen and yes, for some people it's an issue?!

Is the issue you are referring to the abuse itself?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I was highlighting a common theme in your posts which appears to be a reluctance to accept/wish to question if there is any kind of issue despite several posts, thanks, and threads/articles from those who are at the receiving end of such attentions that you have surely read on this very forum, if not this thread - seems rather ironic to take that stance given the article in question.

I accept that people are bullied, abused, raped and murdered. I was bullied for most of my school years and tend to react (mostly appropriately) to bullying. I thinkt hat people over-react to the risk of being raped or murdered by strangers, when most such cases are done by people known to the victim and are likely to be a partner or family member.

What I am wondering is, if the percentage of women who play online games is X%, but only Y% 'admit' to being female, is the (X-Y)% of females enabling (but not carrying out) the bullying of the ~Y% of victims by the Z% of bullies. It is somewhat similar (but not the same) as a crowd standing by while someoen gets attacked in the street only because 'they dressed / looked / behaved that way'. Where the bully picks on the one that looks different becuase everyone else conforms to a stereotype.

Morag

Victor wrote: »

OK, there may be crossed wires.

The issue I am referring to here is a group (in this case women, but gay men also referred to) going 'undercover' to avoid being abused, resulting in a situation where any woman who doesn't go 'undercover' is seen as an outlier and is at the receiving end of abuse from bullies.

Is the issue you are referring to the abuse itself?


I accept that people are bullied, abused, raped and murdered. I was bullied for most of my school years and tend to react (mostly appropriately) to bullying. I thinkt hat people over-react to the risk of being raped or murdered by strangers, when most such cases are done by people known to the victim and are likely to be a partner or family member.

What I am wondering is, if the percentage of women who play online games is X%, but only Y% 'admit' to being female, is the (X-Y)% of females enabling (but not carrying out) the bullying of the ~Y% of victims by the Z% of bullies. It is somewhat similar (but not the same) as a crowd standing by while someoen gets attacked in the street only because 'they dressed / looked / behaved that way'. Where the bully picks on the one that looks different becuase everyone else conforms to a stereotype.

So what your saying is, the women who choose to stay anon online to not be abused are making life hard on those who don't?

Ickle Magoo

Victor wrote: »

OK, there may be crossed wires.

The issue I am referring to here is a group (in this case women, but gay men also referred to) going 'undercover' to avoid being abused, resulting in a situation where any woman who doesn't go 'undercover' is seen as an outlier and is at the receiving end of abuse from bullies.

Is the issue you are referring to the abuse itself?

More just how pleasant it would be to have a discussion on an issue that affects female posters without first having to convince a number of male posters that the issue in question exists.

Victor wrote: »

I accept that people are bullied, abused, raped and murdered. I was bullied for most of my school years and tend to react (mostly appropriately) to bullying. I thinkt hat people over-react to the risk of being raped or murdered by strangers, when most such cases are done by people known to the victim and are likely to be a partner or family member.

So the reason that some women don't find rape jokes funny is that they are over-reacting? Over-sensitive perhaps?

Perhaps that's what the writer of the article was referring to here:

And then when someone (almost always female) stands up against the male-constructed discursive norms in which threats of violence and sexual violence can be characterized as merely a joke, she is attacked for being oversensitive.

Victor wrote: »

What I am wondering is, if the percentage of women who play online games is X%, but only Y% 'admit' to being female, is the (X-Y)% of females enabling (but not carrying out) the bullying of the ~Y% of victims by the Z% of bullies. It is somewhat similar (but not the same) as a crowd standing by while someoen gets attacked in the street only because 'they dressed / looked / behaved that way'.

They aren't helping - but then if an individual from a minority is being abused, should it really have to be the job of the rest of that minority to face similar in order to defend/protect them? Why shouldn't/wouldn't the majority be held accountable/responsible for the general environment that exists which they collectively have the greatest power to influence?

Jack B. Badd

Victor wrote: »

What I am wondering is, if the percentage of women who play online games is X%, but only Y% 'admit' to being female, is the (X-Y)% of females enabling (but not carrying out) the bullying of the ~Y% of victims by the Z% of bullies. It is somewhat similar (but not the same) as a crowd standing by while someoen gets attacked in the street only because 'they dressed / looked / behaved that way'. Where the bully picks on the one that looks different becuase everyone else conforms to a stereotype.

I understand where you're coming from but where does this end? Being a woman isn't the only group that I'm a part of that receives aggressive/bullying comments online (tbh I'd be hard pressed to find some group that isn't at the receiving end of it at some point). Should my username also reflect my ethnicity, political affiliations, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, which of the two big brand colas I prefer?

Victor

There was an article (here?) recently about female journalists writing under male pseudonyms because the female writers were receiving excessive abuse in the comments sections of the newspaper websites. As leaders in the community, is that the right thing for journalists and newspapers to do? Surely it would be better if the dealt with the abuse head on?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So the reason that some women don't find rape jokes funny is that they are over-reacting?

Rape is wrong. While there may be a case for the use of dark humour or humour as a defensive measure / coping mechanism, the gratuitous use of offensive jokes is inappropriate and unacceptable.

Over-sensitive perhaps?

I think in many things humans are over-sensative to risks. We fear the unknown. When I used to babysit for my sister, I would constantly check on the kids throughout the evening, although other than some crying, there would never be a problem. Just the in-built paranoia / over-cautiousness we have.

They aren't helping - but then if an individual from a minority is being abused, should it really have to be the job of the rest of that minority to face similar in order to defend/protect them?

What of solidarity? Again, as I mentioned to Jack B Badd, it is probably wrong to blame individual members of the victim group, but does the group have a responsbility to express solidarity, inform, educate, empower, etc.? 10-15 years ago, I wouldn't have said that racism was a particular problem in Ireland, simply because it was going unreported by the victims (in part because the victims weren't empowered).

Why shouldn't/wouldn't the majority be held accountable/responsible for the general environment that exists which they collectively have the greatest power to influence?

The dominant group (majority may be inaccurate - see the banking crisis, Syria or Apartheid-era South Africa) should be held accountable/responsible for the general environment, however, the dominant group aren't necessarily the perpetrators - a sub-set that might be closely identified with the majority are the perpetrators. Look at Schindler's List or The Help - those of the dominant group (Nazis / rich whites) aren't necessarily bad people, some are good people, some are otherwise good people who are easily led.

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from but where does this end? Being a woman isn't the only group that I'm a part of that receives aggressive/bullying comments online (tbh I'd be hard pressed to find some group that isn't at the receiving end of it at some point). Should my username also reflect my ethnicity, political affiliations, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, which of the two big brand colas I prefer?

Fair point, although it is typically difficult to determine those statuses purely from a name.

Morag

Victor wrote: »

but does the group have a responsbility to express solidarity, inform, educate, empower, etc.? 10-15 years ago, I wouldn't have said that racism was a particular problem in Ireland, simply because it was going unreported by the victims (in part because the victims weren't empowered).

Dude the article is doing that, and so am I in posting it here, but you know what not all of my time as I go about my life has to be about fighting those battles.

Ickle Magoo

Victor wrote: »

There was an article (here?) recently about female journalists writing under male pseudonyms because the female writers were receiving excessive abuse in the comments sections of the newspaper websites. As leaders in the community, is that the right thing for journalists and newspapers to do? Surely it would be better if the dealt with the abuse head on?

Not necessarily, dealing with the abuse head on gets boring and tired for those who have to tackle the sometimes never-ending barrage of banality - and it can just hand ammunition to some who enjoy the privileged status quo and those who resent the constant tackling. If you look back through history there have always been women pretending to be men in order to do the things that historically they were told they shouldn't or couldn't do - I don't know why the internet would be any different.

Regardless, slowly but surely the abuse is being dealt with - issues are highlighted, views are given, the naysayers bleat, the evidence and volume of those willing to share experiences mount and eventually attitudes of all but the most determined become so universally unpopular that a new norm is formed - that's how it usually works.

Victor wrote: »

Rape is wrong. While there may be a case for the use of dark humour or humour as a defensive measure / coping mechanism, the gratuitous use of offensive jokes is inappropriate and unacceptable.
I think in many things humans are over-sensative to risks. We fear the unknown. When I used to babysit for my sister, I would constantly check on the kids throughout the evening, although other than some crying, there would never be a problem. Just the in-built paranoia / over-cautiousness we have.

Do you have any idea how many women are sexually assaulted or raped in the course of their life? And are you aware seem to be a walking advert for many points the article makes?

I don't understand why you equate the paranoia in minding someone else's child with women being both wary of and caring about the ubiquity of sexual violence against their gender. I suspect if male-male rape were as prevalent as male-female it wouldn't be a point that required explanation - and as per the article it would be one less dismissal of women's experiences and one less to mansplain, I presume?

Victor wrote: »

What of solidarity? Again, as I mentioned to Jack B Badd, it is probably wrong to blame individual members of the victim group, but does the group have a responsbility to express solidarity, inform, educate, empower, etc.? 10-15 years ago, I wouldn't have said that racism was a particular problem in Ireland, simply because it was going unreported by the victims (in part because the victims weren't empowered).
The dominant group (majority may be inaccurate - see the banking crisis, Syria or Apartheid-era South Africa) should be held accountable/responsible for the general environment, however, the dominant group aren't necessarily the perpetrators - a sub-set that might be closely identified with the majority are the perpetrators. Look at Schindler's List or The Help - those of the dominant group (Nazis / rich whites) aren't necessarily bad people, some are good people, some are otherwise good people who are easily led.

Or, you know - we could just accept that making an environment so caustic that minorities have to pretend to be white and male in order to gain equality is a depressingly familiar regression - just in a different medium.

And just as with all the previous fights against white-male privilege, it takes time for the demands for equality to be heard; it takes time to highlight the inequalities, it takes time for those standing in the way of change to understand and then accept what the actual issues are (ie "They're so used to being catered to that they see the lack of catering as an imbalance...") until eventually they in turn become the new pariahs, the dinosaur minority with their old-fashioned and unpopular views and so it goes on.

There have been enormous changes in how women use the internet over a very short space of time in a communications media that is still very new, relatively speaking. Even in the past few years there is often a tangibly chillier reception for posters who continually belittle or make jokes at the expense of women in terms of how they are viewed by their peers...but of course in some ways, there is still a long way to go. But hey, we live in a world where women are still fighting for the right to vote or right to drive in some countries, unfortunately, c'est la vie.

iguana

Victor wrote: »

The issue I am referring to here is a group (in this case women, but gay men also referred to) going 'undercover' to avoid being abused, resulting in a situation where any woman who doesn't go 'undercover' is seen as an outlier and is at the receiving end of abuse from bullies.

So you think that anyone who has a gender ambiguous user name is automatically undercover as male? So male is the assumed default and any woman who doesn't pick a name like Nancy or NetGirl is pretending to be male?

Victor

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Not necessarily, dealing with the abuse head on gets boring

Boring? :eek:

and tired for those who have to tackle the sometimes never-ending barrage of banality

Yet, on boards.ie mods and admins continue to deal with abuse (of many kinds), banning people if necessary - perhaps 30,000 (admittedly mostly for spam) in the last 3 years. Websites in the traditional media and social media sites appear to be failing to do this.

I was told something recently and I've had it confirmed by those with psychology training and my personal experiences. On public transport, 10% of adults will always pay even at an extra burden to themselves if there is a difficulty with paying. 5% will do their damndest to not pay. Those in the middle will normally pay, based on the perceived risk of being caught / punished and the urgency of the trip. If one is just going shopping, those in the 85% are unlikely to be in an excessive rush and is likely to miss the tram / train at the platform, so one can buy a ticket. If one is rushing to an important meeting, those in the 85% may be willing to accept the €45 fine, for the oppurtunity to get to the meeting on time.

The 5% of people are also the ones likely to slack off excessively at work, steal pints in the pub / bars of chocolate in the shop, cheat on their partners, exploit their staff or friends and try to get away with what they can on the internet. They are people with psychopathic / sociopathic tendancies. The only ways to stop them are to make it more rewarding for them to behave themselves, e.g. by avoiding punishment.

I suspect with teenagers especially, the figures are skewed and the risk-taking groups are larger and more likely to take larger risks - in this case engage in more abuse.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you have any idea how many women are sexually assaulted or raped in the course of their life?

Typically 15-25% but that would approach nearly 100% in some communities in South Africa. Are you aware of how often people are assaulted other than sexually assaulted? Yes, I realise that being sexually assaulted is generally wrose than other assaults.

And are you aware [you] seem to be a walking advert for many points the article makes?

Is this edit correct?

I'm not sure how to answer that. Yes, I may follow some of the pattern described. That I am asking questions and engaging in discussion, might suggest I am not. However, just because one doesn't agree with an article verbatim doesn't mean one is wrong or the target of such an article.

I don't understand why you equate the paranoia in minding someone else's child with women being both wary of and caring about the ubiquity of sexual violence against their gender.

Humans gauge risks poorly, we are afraid of the big things that happen rarely rather than the than the smaller, more common things. People are afraid of flying, yet driving is much more dangerous. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety


But, is it ubiquitous? Too common yes, but can level of experience of rape in Ireland be compared to the level of experience of rape in South Africa? http://www.rape.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=875

it would be one less dismissal of women's experiences

I think that a separation needs to be made between fears (majority) and experiences (minority).

---

OK, genuine question, why do many (not all) women, especially young women, reward sociopaths? It is one thing to be attracted to a strong (physically- or personality-wise) person, but all to often young women seek out and form relationships with "bad boys", knowing things will turn out bad. On the flip side, these women will then be dismissive or even abusive towards other men.

Victor

iguana wrote: »

So you think that anyone who has a gender ambiguous user name is automatically undercover as male?

No, I've not said that at all. From the list below, names like "The Apprentice" and "sundodger5" would come across as distinctly neutral.

So male is the assumed default and any woman who doesn't pick a name like Nancy or NetGirl is pretending to be male?

"Nancy" merely happens to be a female name. "NetGirl" is specifcially declaring to be female (may not actually be female).

If we look at the last 50 people who have posted on boards.ie (last 50 posts taken from the front page, some user name repeats), precious few of them are identifiable as male or female from name only. One might suspect "shocksy", "Headshot" and others of being male, but that would be stereotyping. We know that 70-75% of boards.ie is male.

User name Likely gender
RoverJames M
Dudess F
Paully D M
shocksy
Headshot
That_Guy M
alphanine
cowzerp
ed2hands
kscobie
voojeq
TheBrinch
dvemail
eagle eye
Duggy747
TW Mr Tayto
hollingr
Victor M
psycho-hope
michaelduignan M
dolanbaker
Liamario M
Dr. Greenthumb
JustMary F
eroo
underthetumb
supersparkz
kadman M
snipe02
gizmo
CTYIgirl F
gufnork
starbelgrade
The Hill Billy
TiltedBrain
CharlieCroker M
skywalk
Newsite
ShamoBuc
Su Campu
Molloys Clondalkin
Karsini
eskimocat
Headshot
Gochko
The Apprentice
leftism
Villa05
Bizzum
sundodger5

Morag

So more women in continental Africa get raped and sexually assaulted then women here in Ireland so women here should learn to stop being so sensitive about rape?

70-75% of boards.ie is male.

We know that, many of us have been drowned out in 'discussion' here on the site by the number of male voices who don't understand how they are making the internet hostile to women.

So much so that this forum as a rule to prevent that happening.

As for the contrast of fears vs experience, for many of us are fears are based on past experiences of ourselves and other women we know.

OK, genuine question, why do many (not all) women, especially young women, reward sociopaths? It is one thing to be attracted to a strong (physically- or personality-wise) person, but all to often young women seek out and form relationships with "bad boys", knowing things will turn out bad.

Nice victim blaming there Victor.

Young women end up in bad relationships often due to lack of experience of, you know being in a relationship and often don't see that it is abusive until it is pointed out to them or for them finally a line is crossed. Some women have bad relationship patterns as they will pattern their romantic relationships after that of their parents. But no one deserves to be in an abusive relationship.

Ickle Magoo

Victor wrote: »

Boring? :eek:

Yet, on boards.ie mods and admins continue to deal with abuse (of many kinds), banning people if necessary - perhaps 30,000 (admittedly mostly for spam) in the last 3 years. Websites in the traditional media and social media sites appear to be failing to do this.

You were attacking female posters for using ambiguous names and questioning why they aren't tackling abuse head on in some kind of group solidarity - I answered that...I'm not sure why we've suddenly switched to the roles of mods and admins on this particular site or we've suddenly narrowed the "abuse" to the kind that get posters banned from here.

Victor wrote: »

I was told something recently and I've had it confirmed by those with psychology training and my personal experiences. On public transport, 10% of adults will always pay even at an extra burden to themselves if there is a difficulty with paying. 5% will do their damndest to not pay. Those in the middle will normally pay, based on the perceived risk of being caught / punished and the urgency of the trip. If one is just going shopping, those in the 85% are unlikely to be in an excessive rush and is likely to miss the tram / train at the platform, so one can buy a ticket. If one is rushing to an important meeting, those in the 85% may be willing to accept the €45 fine, for the oppurtunity to get to the meeting on time.

The 5% of people are also the ones likely to slack off excessively at work, steal pints in the pub / bars of chocolate in the shop, cheat on their partners, exploit their staff or friends and try to get away with what they can on the internet. They are people with psychopathic / sociopathic tendancies. The only ways to stop them are to make it more rewarding for them to behave themselves, e.g. by avoiding punishment.

I suspect with teenagers especially, the figures are skewed and the risk-taking groups are larger and more likely to take larger risks - in this case engage in more abuse.

Sorry - and this relevant to this topic, how?

Victor wrote: »

Typically 15-25% but that would approach nearly 100% in some communities in South Africa. Are you aware of how often people are assaulted other than sexually assaulted? Yes, I realise that being sexually assaulted is generally wrose than other assaults.

Seriously Victor - just ugh. Are you aware those are the statistic for rape - not for sexual assaults...and that many of both go unreported so any statistic is likely to be an underestimate of the reality.

Victor wrote: »

Is this edit correct?

I'm not sure how to answer that. Yes, I may follow some of the pattern described. That I am asking questions and engaging in discussion, might suggest I am not. However, just because one doesn't agree with an article verbatim doesn't mean one is wrong or the target of such an article.

Humans gauge risks poorly, we are afraid of the big things that happen rarely rather than the than the smaller, more common things. People are afraid of flying, yet driving is much more dangerous. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_safety


But, is it ubiquitous? Too common yes, but can level of experience of rape in Ireland be compared to the level of experience of rape in South Africa? http://www.rape.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=875

I think that a separation needs to be made between fears (majority) and experiences (minority).

This is the Ladies Lounge, a forum thats very function is for women to discuss issues that affect them - there are women who have posted on this thread and read this thread who have been raped and/or sexually assaulted and yet here you are dominating the discussion and telling the wee women, rather condescendingly I might add, that because they aren't guaranteed of being raped - it's "only" a one in four or one in five chance that their fears are irrational...

Victor wrote: »

OK, genuine question, why do many (not all) women, especially young women, reward sociopaths? It is one thing to be attracted to a strong (physically- or personality-wise) person, but all to often young women seek out and form relationships with "bad boys", knowing things will turn out bad. On the flip side, these women will then be dismissive or even abusive towards other men.

Again, I have no idea of the relevance to this thread nor why the discussion should be moved from the issues highlighted in the article to defending women who fit that stereotype. If it's not women's fault for lacking solidarity, it's over-reaction, it's irrationality and now it's because some women want to be abused. Good grief, how to validate an article by example. :eek:

starbelgrade

Victor wrote: »

If we look at the last 50 people who have posted on boards.ie (last 50 posts taken from the front page, some user name repeats), precious few of them are identifiable as male or female from name only.

User name Likely gender

starbelgrade

I'm named after a football team.... WHY DO PEOPLE NOT GET THAT?!?!?!?! AAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!!

Kooli

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Good grief, how to validate an article by example. :eek:

It's actually incredible.

thebullkf

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You were attacking female posters for using ambiguous names and questioning why they aren't tackling abuse head on in some kind of group solidarity - I answered that...I'm not sure why we've suddenly switched to the roles of mods and admins on this particular site or we've suddenly narrowed the "abuse" to the kind that get posters banned from here.

I don't recall Victor attacking other posters, an exaggeration maybe?

Sorry - and this relevant to this topic, how?

Personality traits/ dynamics

Seriously Victor - just ugh. Are you aware those are the statistic for rape - not for sexual assaults...and that many of both go unreported so any statistic is likely to be an underestimate of the reality.

but you asked the question... then chide when answered. Seriously.

This is the Ladies Lounge, a forum thats very function is for women to discuss issues that affect them

Does that imply that only views concurring with female posters are welcome, or male input that dares disagree is unwelcome?... maybe i'm reading this wrong but thats the way it appears.

- there are women who have posted on this thread and read this thread who have been raped and/or sexually assaulted and yet here you are dominating the discussion and telling the wee women,

i think the fact you included the term "wee women" is condescending tbh.

rather condescendingly I might add, that because they aren't guaranteed of being raped - it's "only" a one in four or one in five chance that their fears are irrational...

You seem to be implying that Victors posts are quite indifferent to the fears of women being raped, again i fail to read that into his posts, are you over reacting maybe?

Again, I have no idea of the relevance to this thread nor why the discussion should be moved from the issues highlighted in the article to defending women who fit that stereotype. If it's not women's fault for lacking solidarity, it's over-reaction, it's irrationality and now it's because some women want to be abused. Good grief, how to validate an article by example. :eek:

^^ Disagree totally , its disengenious (spelling?) to condense Victors points into 3 lines culminating in the declaration that he believes "women want to be abused"

FWIW i'm not the biggest fan of those types of jokes or the use of the term rape as a verb, or adjective to describe anything other than what it is, a heinous act perpetrated by sick individuals. Nor do i subscribe to the typical racist stereotypes. There are women just as there men who love telling filthy jokes ( lisa Lampinelli anyone?) and the more shocking the better, (joan rivers joking about her husbands suicide!) of course regardless of the joke if you've personally experienced the 'punchline' as it were , well then its of course going to upset you eg Fat Jokes-Suicide- etc etc

To say women don't "get" certain jokes is also true of men, and in my experience the jokes women don't "get" are usually offensive or are oriented around male interests rather than the "wee Women' are thick or some such nonsense.

Hope i am articulating this properly ,as i don't want it to be misconstrued:o

*I'm male btw and find certain topics on this particular forum to be quite interesting, but due to over zealous intepretation/accusations of whataboutery and anti feminine male ranting levelled at cartain posters etc
-i don't post here often, nor do many men ( again i'm aware its for Ladies) which i think is a shame really as there some cracking debates here. apologies for the long addendum, *

Ickle Magoo

This is a forum to facilitate the discussion of issues pertinent to women, from a female perspective - and yet if it's not having to directly defend their perspectives and experiences from male posters, it's male posters dropping by to defend other male posters. On a thread regarding an article about male interlocutors and just not knowing where to draw the line, it's really quite mind-bogglingly ironic.

If I waded in on a discussion somewhere designed to facilitate such discussions for men, on a thread about erectile dysfunction in order to poh-poh any men who happened to think it an issue, I'd expect short shrift;..but then I'd never be so arrogant as to think it was appropriate to do that in the first place - perhaps that's just another sign of my lack of privilege though...?

thebullkf

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This is a forum to facilitate the discussion of issues pertinent to women, from a female perspective - and yet if it's not having to directly defend their perspectives and experiences from male posters, it's male posters dropping by to defend other male posters.

Should i assume that you are referring to my post above? I understand your position and the position of this forum, my "dropping by" was not intended as a defence, i'm sure Victor is capable of such.

On a thread regarding an article about male interlocutors and just not knowing where to draw the line, it's really quite mind-bogglingly ironic.

mind boggling ironic...hmm are we over reacting again, i fail to see such epic irony tbh.

If I waded in on a discussion somewhere designed to facilitate such discussions for men, on a thread about erectile dysfunction in order to poh-poh any men who happened to think it an issue,

Are you comparing rape jokes to ED, sweet lamb, again i fail to see any 'Poh poh-ing around here, 'cept of course from yourself.

I'd expect short shrift;..but then I'd never be so arrogant as to think it was appropriate to do that in the first place - perhaps that's just another sign of my lack of privilege though...?

So now its arrogance and inappropriate to contribute to a debate regarding this subject matter. I assure you i'm not arrogant despite your intepretation of my posts.It appears i'm not the arrogant one.


My apologies to any poster who misconstrued my posts. Job done Ickle-
i shall refrain from further inappropriate and arrogant remarks. :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, wimminz over-reacting again - hardy-har...that musta taken you hours to come up with - yet you still can't see the irony? Did you bother to read the OP?

I haven't compared making rape-jokes with ED (an issue that hasn't and is unlikely to ever affect me directly) - I've compared my hypothetical dismissal of male opinion on how ED affects men, on a forum where men post to hear male opinion - with comments made about female posters over-reactions because they happen to come from a part of the world where rape is a 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 chance rather than 100% guaranteed. It would be arrogant and inappropriate of me to make such comments in such an environment.

Given your multiple references to over-reaction, posting just to defend the frankly indefensible and the transparent passive-aggressive approach, you'll forgive me for being cynical that it's me that got the job done, "sweet lamb".

Maple

Please note, the Ladies Lounge exists so that female posters may debate topics from a female perspective. It does not exist as a place for female posters to have to constantly validate those held opinions and beliefs against disgruntled male posters. Indeed having to do so is both wearing and kills debate.

thebullkf, please do not use the term "sweet lamb" again when debating directly with another poster. It is both condescending and inflammatory.

Maple

Victor

starbelgrade wrote: »

I'm named after a football team.... WHY DO PEOPLE NOT GET THAT?!?!?!?! AAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!!

As I said, to decide on someone's identity solely on user name (as opposed to a personal name) would be stereotyping. Women are entitled to be football fans as well.

Kanoe

Maple wrote: »

Please note, the Ladies Lounge exists so that female posters may debate topics from a female perspective. It does not exist as a place for female posters to have to constantly validate those held opinions and beliefs against disgruntled male posters. Indeed having to do so is both wearing and kills debate.

thebullkf, please do not use the term "sweet lamb" again when debating directly with another poster. It is both condescending and inflammatory.

Maple

Was he not just using a phrase like "sweet baby Jesus" and not actually referring to anyone as a sweet lamb..heh although that's kind of funny. (Not trying to defend anyone, just stating it as I read it and I'm not trying to negate the warning either)

Think privilege is a difficult concept for a lot of people to get their head around, many people are unable to acknowledge their own positions of privilege purely because they have no experience of what it is like outside of their own world view. It can be a difficult concept to grasp but once they get it there's no going back.
My solution is to use female as the default gender on boards from now on and address everyone as her, she, sweet baby lamb face and baby cakes where no other gender has been explicitly confirmed.

Maple

Kanoe, if that's an attempt at humour, just don't. You're adding nothing to the thread and your dismissive tone is both condescending and offensive.

Maple

Kanoe

you're going to have to educate me, I was kind of serious.

Wibbs

I think Maple was being pretty clear, so can we please get back to the thread.

Kooli

Kanoe wrote: »

Was he not just using a phrase like "sweet baby Jesus" and not actually referring to anyone as a sweet lamb..heh although that's kind of funny. (Not trying to defend anyone, just stating it as I read it and I'm not trying to negate the warning either)

Think privilege is a difficult concept for a lot of people to get their head around, many people are unable to acknowledge their own positions of privilege purely because they have no experience of what it is like outside of their own world view. It can be a difficult concept to grasp but once they get it there's no going back.
My solution is to use female as the default gender on boards from now on and address everyone as her, she, sweet baby lamb face and baby cakes where no other gender has been explicitly confirmed.

I think Kanoe made some really good points!!

Particularly about how difficult privilege is to grasp if you have it.

For example, I sometimes find it hard to relate to the experience of black people. Sometimes the thought might pop into my head that 'Surely it's not really like that' or 'Come on, they can't play the race card' or 'That happens to everyone not just black people' or whatever.

The only way I know that these thoughts are coming from a position of privilege if because I have the personal experience of being on the other side of it as a woman, and I know what that feels like, and that allows me to kind of check myself and go 'Hang on, how on earth could I possibly know what it's like?'

However if I were a white, straight, middle-class man, I think it would be a lot more difficult to recognise privilege because I haven't had the personal experience of being without it.
So I do understand why it can be important for men to 'get it'. What I don't understand is why they don't just accept that they don't 'get it', and why they have to keep trying to convince us that we're mistaken.

Kanoe

The topic of privilege comes up regularly in the lgbt forum and I remembered this discussion which made some pretty valid points on the subject. I hope it's ok if I post the opening post here, I think it explains privilege in a way people can relate to and definitely gave me better insight of the issue and offers some solutions and ways of moving forward. (then again maybe that's just me)

As you may remember, I left a few months ago due to these issue - the typical rather irritating "We're supportive of Group X so we can't say anything wrong about them" attitude. I've spent the last while(for unrelated reasons) reading up a lot on minority/marginalised groups' issues, especially in the world of gaming where it's particularly bad, though it applies everything to an extent.

Ideally I am looking to educate here. I am not interested in another fight where I am ganged up on, it's pointless. There are certain people I'm probably going to have to ignore off the bat unless they surprise me. I do not represent an unusual stance. If you are attacking me on this - you are attack the majority of advocates on these issues. Keep that in mind. Most of them will get upset and even angry when put under the same pressure I was as they're far too used to dealing with straight white people being assholes to them.

I am not interested in a pointless fight. If this is too long for you, then skim it and acknowledge when I correct you in your replies as to what I actually said. The most important bits are the quotes towards the end, and the line or two I've bolded. If you have the time and are genuine about LGBT rights though - as well as issues of sexism, ableism, racism etc., you will read it, and if you reply, you will do so respectfully and maturely.

If you really think someone would put this much effort into an argument just to troll someone, when there are far better ways of doing so, I don't know how to help you. I suggest you divorce yourself from 4chan influenced sections of the internet for a bit and begin to see there are many different kinds of people with different motives, and very human reactions. Now that I have dealth with this - I am not going to honour any of these accusations. If someone like me is "Looking for trouble" just trying to defend theirselves and their life experience as an LGBT - then that has "unfortunate impliciations" in the extreme(look it up on TV Tropes).

Basically, even when you consider yourself tolerant, supportive or even a member of a marginalised group there is no guarantee you will or cannot make an insensitive remark. None. I consider myself supportive of ethnic minority rights, but that doesn't mean I am beyond saying something racist. The difference is that when I'm corrected on it, I will actually consider what the other person is saying, be patient and understanding, and apologise if I was in the wrong. This is the appropriate way to do it. As ooposed to here, where the reaction was to tell me what I could and couldn't be offended by, get aggressive with me, personally attack me and call me a "troll". In other words the worst possible reaction short of switching to outright discrimination.

I can even make remarks about the minority I am a part of - which would be know as "Internalised" Homophobia/Racism/Ableism, whatever. However since I have experience of that group - my view is far more likely to be more accurate - just not infallible.

And that is one of the important things. If you're not gay, you probably don't know what it's like to be gay. Even gay people with individual life experiences won't always do this - some people are more sheltered than others. A Gay person living in San Fran or Sweden is probably a lot more privileged than one living in Poland. Privilege is an important concept to recognise, and one that makes people get defensive. It is not your fault you are privileged. It is not my fault I am white. However, if I make a remark that shows my privilege and refuse to accept it - then that action is my fault. The typical kind of "privileged" remarks you get for example are when conservatives complain about "special" rights for minorities - failing to realise all the backdoors that have been open for ththem all along.


That is refusing to accept or "Own" one's own privilege. It is troublesome because it causes people to act as everyone is on an equal playing ground when it is not true - it is not just about legal rights, but realistically, what you can and can't do and to what degree, as well as what you have to put up with. This is different for different groups.

It should be noted that privilege can't cancel out other privilege. Someone being black does not mean they get to use their experiences to invalidate my own as someone suffering from an ASD - it makes no sense. Yet you'll find people doing this. "I have it hard, therefore you're just a whiner". Everyone is an individual, and every group has their own experiences. You may have heard of the "53%" movement in response to the #ows, which is not only absurd in nature, but when you consider the above point - flat out invalid. If you have to use the word "whiner", you're probably doing it wrong.

The worst thing is when someone says they're straight, white male cisgendered and able bodied but they have plenty of rubbish to put up with - a spouse, children, their mortgage, working two jobs, whatever, so why do we pay special attention to gays or POC.

This is horrible reasoning as there is no reason why a member of a marginalised group cannot experience those as well(though partner and children in some cases is more difficult - this only shows up more privilege on the normal guy's behalf). There are very few things that only straight white males experience in that regard - I am sure they are some, but they don't begin with compare with the vast privilege checklists for people of colour, homosexuals, transsexuals, mentally ill, etc.

This is at the heart of the issue that happened here - people get thrown out of pubs all the time, why only care when someone is gay?

Because gay people have to put up with being thrown out of pubs for regular reasons, as well as being thrown out for being gay. Someone like the dude in question doesn't have to put up with this - this is one of the privileges he has. He is not discriminated against because of his sexuality(and again - this can even apply to gay people in the right situation, though not to the same degree perhaps). So it's not really his place to comment on how someone - that's not to say he can't disagree - but getting sarcastic, cocky or otherwise disrespectful with someone who DOES know what it's like is wrong - there should be no question of that, no majority getting behind the person having a great laugh since they're super supportive of the gays and how ridiculous you're acting - it was, straight up, a self identified ally failing to be an ally.

Ultimately, all you ended up with(for the most part) was a bunch of straight, white cisgendered neurotypical people ganging up on an autistic transsexual. There will be the "It's not because of that, but -" but this is from people who don't understand that privilege can be just as damaging as outright discrimination. From a practical perspective - it's not really much different than being as simple as that. It was wrong, and I hope at least some people have realised that since then. No matter how much you insist it was nothing to do with that - other people like me looking in will not see it that way. I know this because I am involved in those groups. You are not. If you care about LGBT people - you will care about this fact.

The person in question failed to own their privilege and this is what caused the issue - not my over-reacting. You may not discriminate against gays and even campaign for their rights like a good little liberal - but you can still act privileged against them. This can be just as harmful. Going back further again to what sparked people to react in this way - the London Riots - again, I tried to bring up the concept of privilege there but nobody got it. A lot of people here will be relatively sheltered against the poor living conditions and upbringings that can cause such behaviour. I'm not looking to deal with this specific issue now, since it's pretty old, though I notice it coming up again with regard the #ows thread.

Basically, some people, some groups of people, will have it more difficult than others with regards certain issues, and that needs to be respected. It was not respected, and in fact, people got extremely vicious in the face of an extremely sensitive issue. I am certain I lost my cool - and that's not always the right thing to do - but again, with privilege - it's not about you, it's about the person who's experiencing the issue at hand. If you're an ally, you'll respect that. The socially conservative tough guy thing needs to go out the window, and if you assume that attitude - then you're not an ally.

This shouldn't be a pissing match, comparing my scar to yours, but it does mean that if someone gets angry or upset at you on the basis of discrimination, privilege of the general failure of allies - that's a lot more understandable than the reaction for example some people have shown me here. You are in a position of privilege here - especially since you represent the vocal minority of the board. You have no reason to get angry - you have control here. I suspect what largely happened here is the typical behaviour you get on forums where "popular" members and their arguments will be defended against all better judgement. This is another thing that's damaging to minorities, as funny TV shows, celebrities etc. will often be defended in the same manner instead of criticised.

I am going to make a very important statement now - people on this board have claimed it's gay friendly, etc. and how gay friendly the people involved where. However, if this place was genuinely gay friendly - they would also acknowledge the concept of privilege, which people seem to be rejecting. Being for gay marriage, having gay friends does not mean you will always create a comfortable environment for homosexuals. Considering yourself an ally does not mean you can't fail as one. No, ifs, and no butts, and this is not even me saying it - it is the general position advocates of marginalised groups will take. Having one or two LGBT members who may not be as passionate about their rights does not change it either - those seriously involved in LGBT rights will have the same stance I do.

If you cannot accept the idea of privilege, and that allies can fail - this place is not LGBT friendly. It is not you that get to decide for us whether this place is sensitive and respectful or not.

I'm going to deal with some other people's links now, to show that my argument is more widely held -

On Privilege

http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-03-08_146

Here are some of the more important points -

Quote:
Don’t Make It About You
First of all, there’s a difference between using your own experience as a foundation for understanding, and making something about you. The former requires you thinking abou a situation and trying to understand it the only way you can – through your own personal lens. The latter, however, is often a defensive reaction (especially around non-privileged groups, because privileged groups have been trained to keep the focus on ourselves) that will shut down dialogue faster that you can say “moo”. Make sure that what you’re saying is relevant and appropriate before you bring your privileged experience into a conversation by and/or about a non-privileged group. And, furthermore, if people in that group react badly, don’t get angry at them! Reflect on the situation and use that knowledge to foster a better discussion next time.


(Emphasis on the last point)

Quote:
Intent Isn’t an Excuse
For the most part, I believe that all human beings have the best of intentions. Most of us don’t go about our days seeking to hurt people with words or actions. But, the result of our actions can be that it causes hurt/offense to others. So, while malicious intent may add icing to the cake, it does not dictate whether or not an offense has been made. “That wasn’t my intent,” all too often translates into “your reactions to what I did are invalid because I didn’t mean any harm.” The result is that it’s a defensive reaction that silences discussion on the issue and puts the words/actions above criticism. It, in essense, privileges the sayer/doer’s opinion/feelings over that of the non-privileged person or group that they have offended.


^ This one is very important. I think "Intent" in it's purest forum is what matters since you can't always control your actions - but when people use it in this case, they are forgetting that they lack the "intent" to respect the sensitivity of others. Plus, if you go on to defend your remark, and dismiss the person in question -

When Allies Fail

http://www.whattamisaid.com/2009/11/when-allies-fail-part-one.html
http://whattamisaid.blogspot.com/2009/11/when-allies-fail-pt-2.html

Pretty much everything said in the first part is essential, so I'm going to quote the points -

Quote:
Listen. Good relationship habits 101--listen to the person(s) that you have harmed. It may be helpful to repeat what you understand the grievance to be in order to demonstrate that you are making an effort to understand. Before you speak, think about what is being said. Try to put aside your ego (hard as that is) and examine the "offense." Can you see your privilege peeking through? Have you uncovered a hidden bias? Even if your actions were unintentional, can you see how they could be misconstrued?

Don't defend. Everyone wants to believe they have their prejudices in check. And when you are generally diligent about examining your biases and privilege, and you have good intentions, hearing that you have failed can feel like a slap. It is easy to become defensive, rattling explanations and defenses rather than truly listening to the person who is offended. And you may feel angry: "After all the ways I've proven myself, how could anyone think I am (racist, sexist, etc.)." Resist the urge to defend yourself at first. This doesn't mean you need be endlessly berated or that the person who you have offended is right. It simply means that you can't listen and hear where another person is coming from if you are talking.

Allow us our anger. It isn't easy being a member of a marginalized group. For instance, I have written before about the dull aches of racism. I have also written about how members of marginalized groups are expected to hold their tongues in the face of mistreatment--to be the "bigger persons." What may seem like a very small deal to you, to us may be yet another wearying and soul-destroying slight. Any human being has a right to be angry about injustice. Again, this does not mean that we have the right to dehumanize or insult you. It is not an ally's job to be endlessly flogged and called to account for the sins of all society. But marginalized people do have a right to be pissed off and to show it.

Apologize. If you understand and agree that you have committed an offense, apologize. No "I'm sorry, but..." No need to explain the whys and wherefores or attempt to minimize. Just say, "I'm sorry. I was wrong and I should have known better." Period. Own your mistake. Now, I am not suggesting that you apologize for something you didn't do or don't think you've done. If, after truly listening, you believe you have been misunderstood...well, that situation is more difficult. That I am a black woman does not automatically mean that I am always right in identifying a white person's race bias or a man's gender bias. There is a way to acknowledge what another person is feeling, even if you ultimately don't apologize. But know that if you're a guy on a womanist Web site, for example, and multiple women tell you that you are being a sexist asshole, you probably need to check yourself.

(If Possible) Correct. If what you have done can be undone, do it immediately.

Educate yourself. The best way to come to understand how, say, "racism" works, to identify your own biases and to learn the language of the movement, is to get smart about racial prejudice and privilege, as well as other cultures. Don't rely on people of color to do your work for you. As allies, we will naturally share some information with you, teach a little. But teaching is not our responsibility. Read the books by important thinkers on race. Note new study results. Pay attention to pop culture, media and art beyond the mainstream. Seek a diverse group of friends. Lurk on popular anti-racist blogs. Get involved offline. And again, listen...listen...listen. This is the best way to avoid missteps and to recover when you fail. Your education is your responsibility.

Reaffirm your commitment. Proof that you are a true ally to a cause--whatever the cause is--is that you slog through and keep going, even through rough patches and arguments. Your continued presence post-mistake, whether on a feminist blog or in a local grassroots anti-racist organization, is a demonstration of your commitment.


Now do you see how people? I'm not saying I'm always blameless, which is always the next accusation - but it doesn't excuse taking the wrong actions when dealing with a member of a marginalised group.

Not a single one of these steps was taken. And yes, that includes "Listen" - if you'll remember what sparked my upset was getting a number of "cool story bro" type responses. Once you do that - again, you have failed as an ally. You don't always have to agree or listen to absolutely everything - but you should at least show some respect and understand the kind of pressures behind someone's reaction to that.

Remember, when you say you're "gay friendly" or "black friendly" - this is what it actually means to be "friendly" to such a group.
_________________

^ On Privilege/When Allies Fail; Addressing the "We're supportive of gays/women/blacks so we can't say anything wrong about them" attitude.

PrincessLola

Jack B. Badd wrote: »

I assume the point of your question is whether or not I'm "hiding" my gender by choosing a male/gender-ambiguous username online? Tbh my usename has nothing to do with my gender, it's from a female character in a film - granted, she's a pre-teen girl trying to pretend she's a boy because she thought it would be easier given the circumstances but that didn't occur to me at the time :rolleyes:

I will admit, I haven't come across much sexual aggression towards me online and part of that may be because, unless I state it, my username doesn't advertise the fact that I'm female. Also I tend not to wade into the AH-style "bloody wimmin" threads because what's the point, really? I have encountered it towards other people though who are more forthright about their gender. Maybe I should ask the admins to change it to Jacqueline B. Badd for a few weeks and see how I get on...

Point being, I guess, is that I don't wear my gender on my sleeve online. I usually assume that means that others think that I'm neutral as regards gender (as I usually do when encountering a not-obviously gender-related username). Maybe I'm wrong though, maybe everyone else just thinks I'm a guy until I state otherwise.

I understand where you're coming from, but there are some unfortunate implications in what you're saying.

To you being 'gender neutral' seems to mean expicitly being 'not female'.
I could be mistaken, but in adapting the online name, i.e Jack, does arguably imply you are male. So are you saying to be gender neutral is to be male? This is a very common and somewhat troublesome notion. Men are always the 'default' and 'neutral' gender, whereas women always have to the the 'other'. In other words, people will assume a cartoon mouse is male, until you slap a bow and some eyelashes on it.
Its also problematic that male posters will automatically assume another poster is male


PS: As a user with an overtly female user name, I don't think I've been treated very differently on here, maybe a couple of times I might encounter some basement-dwelling neckbeard, I usually just ignore them.
However I strongly stick by my user name I feel I have everyright to express my gender without getting harassed or taken less seriously.