The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[Senethro]

Where is he doing this? If one white guy in South Africa is subjected to racism - it's not racism because he's white. This is what you're telling us. True or not?

To your question a question: Is the white guy you describe experiencing novel or original racism, or is he receiving a response to the racism black people received from white people in South Africa?

 

[danjuno]

I think CFC needs a lot more discussion on this subject, given how quiet people most people are and given the attitude among quite a few of those who aren't.

Getting back to the OP, Feminists like Anita Sarkeesian are hurting the community they are a part of, when they claim to be helping. She takes the hate that any politicized figure would get on the internet and uses it to concoct straw men of her legitimate opponents. And she is fantastic at it. Nobody talks about the rebuttals that well articulated people offer to her, they only talk about the threats and trolling she gets. Again, there are thousands of figures who are controversial in some way that they receive massive hate and plenty of threats.

The fact is, trolls and flamers will use whatever is available to get at you, and if they can call you a ******** and tell you to go make a sandwich, they will do it. If they can call you a neckbeard and tell you to check your privilege to get at you, they'll do that. The internet and the gaming world would be great without all the mean-spiritedness, but don't pigeon-hole the issue as a misogyny problem when everybody can be a victim.

 

[aelf]

Eh, there's a world of difference.

I didn't say "multiculturalism is bad" point blank. I explained my definition of it, acknowledged different ones, and made it clear which one I wished to discuss. I didn't want to redefine what multiculturalism means, I wanted to discuss an ideology that I call multiculturalism. That ideology, IMO, is bad. Other definitions of multiculturalism, which are also broadly accepted, describe a harmless phenomena (diversity pure and simple).

Cheezy OTOH simply stated "white people can't be victims of racism because racism is this - always and everywhere". He didn't acknowledge the other, far more common use of the term. He claimed he was right and those saying that whites can indeed be victims of racism are wrong. He said that black people in the US can be jerks, but never racists. So he essentially hijacked a word and is now saying everybody else is wrong.

The two are entirely different and totally unrelated, and it's bizarre you can't see it. I wasn't making a semantic argument at all.

I don't consider the mere presence of different ethnic groups to mean a "Multicultural Society", as I understand it.

"I know some people call a certain phenomenon 'multiculturalism', but I disagree that that's multiculturalism. Instead, I will define multiculturalism in a certain way so I can proceed with my polemic."

It's bizzare you can't see how similar it is.

 

[brennan]

Are there such laws in the UK?

Yes. There is a growing body of case law on such cases of indirect discrimination.

And that question arose from someone suggesting that institutionalised racism is based on legislation.

That's a clear misrepresentation. I was posed the favourable treatment of Romans in the Roman Republic/Empire as though it was comparable to the alleged favourable treatment of White Men in the UK. I was trying to point out that we can clearly identify the basis of discrimination in favour of Roman Citizens in Rome as they had blatantly more rights in law that anyone who was not a Roman Citizen.

To point out that this comparison is not the slightest bit apt I was asking what rights White Men get by law in the UK that other groups do not - black women for example. The answer is 'none'.

In fact there are laws that contain a discriminatory element in the UK and they all favour women - the laws on maternity and paternity leave for example.

 

[luiz]

"I know some people call a certain phenomenon 'multiculturalism', but I disagree that that's multiculturalism. Instead, I will define multiculturalism in a certain way so I can proceed with my polemic."

It's bizzare you can't see how similar it is.

My polemic was not against a word, it was against an ideology. I do consider "my" definition of multiculturalism (which is one of many definitions, none of which I made up myself) to be more useful, because we already have another word for diversity - and that word is "diversity".

Starting a thread to debate a certain ideology (not a word), explaining my definition of the word employed to name that ideology, all the while acknowledging that there are several different definitions and trying to avoid confusion - what I did - is totally different and unrelated to jumping in a thread and arguing that the only meaning of an extremely common word is that of a very narrow definition of said word - which is what Cheezy did.

Additionally, but this is not even that relevant, the word "racism" is already very well defined, while the word "multiculturalism" is not.

 

[Senethro]

Yes. There is a growing body of case law on such cases of indirect discrimination.


That's a clear misrepresentation. I was posed the favourable treatment of Romans in the Roman Republic/Empire as though it was comparable to the alleged favourable treatment of White Men in the UK. I was trying to point out that we can clearly identify the basis of discrimination in favour of Roman Citizens in Rome as they had blatantly more rights in law that anyone who was not a Roman Citizen.

To point out that this comparison is not the slightest bit apt I was asking what rights White Men get by law in the UK that other groups do not - black women for example. The answer is 'none'.

In fact there are laws that contain a discriminatory element in the UK and they all favour women - the laws on maternity and paternity leave for example.

The laws aren't equally enforced against all groups hence all the efforts to clean up the Metropolitan Police.

 

[aelf]

That's a clear misrepresentation. I was posed the favourable treatment of Romans in the Roman Republic/Empire as though it was comparable to the alleged favourable treatment of White Men in the UK. I was trying to point out that we can clearly identify the basis of discrimination in favour of Roman Citizens in Rome as they had blatantly more rights in law that anyone who was not a Roman Citizen.

To point out that this comparison is not the slightest bit apt I was asking what rights White Men get by law in the UK that other groups do not - black women for example. The answer is 'none'.

Then you clearly did not understand the point of the analogy, which is quite strange, especially since it's clearly an analogy and I would normally expect people who speak English well to know how analogies work - i.e. they're not direct comparisons, but comparisons meant to illustrate a point, in this case (as clearly stated) how privilege does not ensure all members of the privileged group are not disadvantaged.

In fact there are laws that contain a discriminatory element in the UK and they all favour women - the laws on maternity and paternity leave for example.

So you're against all kinds of affirmative action too, eh?

My polemic was not against a word, it was against an ideology. I do consider "my" definition of multiculturalism (which is one of many definitions, none of which I made up myself) to be more useful, because we already have another word for diversity - and that word is "diversity".

Yeah, there's already another term for discrimination against white people - racial discrimination.

Starting a thread to debate a certain ideology (not a word), explaining my definition of the word employed to name that ideology, all the while acknowledging that there are several different definitions and trying to avoid confusion - what I did - is totally different and unrelated to jumping in a thread and arguing that the only meaning of an extremely common word is that of a very narrow definition of said word - which is what Cheezy did.

Additionally, but this is not even that relevant, the word "racism" is already very well defined, while the word "multiculturalism" is not.

Oh? And by whom? Would you say that it's all well defined as fascism? Because clearly people use terms in ways that are convenient for them, and they can be "well defined" differently to different groups.

You're right in that we should tend to prefer using terms in ways that are more useful. I think using 'racism' in the sense of institutional racism is more useful.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, there's already another term for discrimination against white people - racial discrimination.

And racial discrimination is... racism.

Oh? And by whom? Would you say that it's all well defined as fascism? Because clearly people use terms in ways that are convenient for them, and they can be "well defined" differently to different groups.

You're right in that we should tend to prefer using terms in ways that are more useful. I think using 'racism' in the sense of institutional racism is more useful.

By users, the only people with authority to determine the meaning of words. Ask anyone what racism means, they'll answer something along the lines of racial discrimination.

I didn't claim that people using multiculturalism in other ways are wrong. I don't claim to be able to define what word mean.

Note that Cheezy didn't even let open the possibility that people were using a different, and also valid, definition of racism. He just stated that what they described was not racism, period. You will note that the way I approached the definition of the word was entirely different, and with an entirely different purpose.

And his definition contradicts what is to be found on dictionaries, encyclopedias, and popular usage.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I wonder why all these feminism threads end up with at least as many posts in them talking about racism. If there really are legitimate issues of significant importance facing women, and the debate about them elicits strong feelings and opinions from both sides, then why can the threads never just stick to that topic?

 

[cardgame]

I don't know. I doubt there's more than 20% of this thread that's on topic anymore.

 

[Senethro]

Because half of the difficulty is trying to get the issue out of the blind spot it tends to occupy. Racism is in some ways easier to identify and makes for useful analogies.

 

[Quintillus]

IMO, yes, there is a real problem. It might not be evident at the more civilized sites like Civilization Fanatics' Center. But go look at some of the more sleazy, unmoderated corners of the Internet, and you'll find it. As well as the comments section for pro-feminist articles that get wide circulation and don't have filtered comments.

Or read downtown's post, quoted below. Having read some articles about what downtown describes, it's horrible what goes on sometimes.

We talk about this a lot at work. The hate mail that my female journalist coworkers, ESPECIALLY those who work in more male dominated fields (sports, tech, games, auto) is SO MUCH WORSE, and so much more personal, than anything I, or my male peers, typically get.

Everybody gets yelled at on the internet, including me. But there are things that get said to my colleagues that just don't end up in our inboxes. I have to think there is a reason for it.

Quoting as IMO this is the best post on the first page (didn't read the other 9 since it'd take a long time).

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I wonder why all these feminism threads end up with at least as many posts in them talking about racism. If there really are legitimate issues of significant importance facing women, and the debate about them elicits strong feelings and opinions from both sides, then why can the threads never just stick to that topic?

For one thing, there aren't that many women here to give a first-hand account from a woman's point of view.

 

[classical_hero]

This site s far too dominated by males that it is hard for women to get their voices heard over all the arguing.

 

[bhavv]

I'm beginning to believe that current day online feminism, or ********sm as I prefer to call it is just an organised movement of misandry.

 

[brennan]

- i.e. they're not direct comparisons, but comparisons meant to illustrate a point, in this case (as clearly stated) how privilege does not ensure all members of the privileged group are not disadvantaged.

I see that you have not understood the nature of the rebuttal.

I have questioned whether privilege exists at all for White men in the UK. In analogising via a situation in which privilege clearly does exist and we can show exactly where it comes from, you are evading the necessity of demonstrating privilege in the case of the UK. Ancient Rome is simply a red herring here.

So you're against all kinds of affirmative action to, eh

Ah yes, because some forms of discrimination are noble and do not make you appear a hypocrite.

I would normally expect people who speak English well to know how analogies work

This is a Red Diamond thread, if you can't make a point without being rude perhaps you should not be here.

For one thing, there aren't that many women here to give a first-hand account from a woman's point of view.

Yes, we need more anecdotes.

 

[Senethro]

I see that you have not understood the nature of the rebuttal.

I have questioned whether privilege exists at all for White men in the UK. In analogising via a situation in which privilege clearly does exist and we can show exactly where it comes from, you are evading the necessity of demonstrating privilege in the case of the UK. Ancient Rome is simply a red herring here.

Going to requote one of camikazes's posts

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread" - Anatole France

The point is one worth keeping in mind when talking about the law. Laws don't need to specifically grant rights to a group in order to privilege them, or they don't need to specifically target another group to disadvantage them. A classic example is mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine. Formerly in the US, there was a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence for possession of 5g of crack cocaine, but the same penalty only applied for possession of 500g of powder cocaine. The two substances are not significantly difference in any respect other than that crack cocaine tends to be used by a high proportion of black people, whereas powder cocaine tends to be used by a high proportion of white people. Now, on the surface the law does not state "this mandatory minimum applies particularly to black people", but the legislature had made a choice to target the type of cocaine black people happened to use as being somehow worse. Whether or not it was a conscious choice, the law was clearly disadvantageous to them.

More generally, the law tends to protect the status quo, or those with existing power and privilege, through such things as property rights. Again, on the surface property rights appear to apply to everyone equally, but that doesn't mean those who have more property don't therefore have more property rights. In the context of the English law, traditionally it's been rich white men who have held the most property, and who therefore benefit the most from property law, by having more property rights for the law to protect. It would seem strange to suggest that the law doesn't protect the status quo in this regard. Sure, it doesn't explicitly say "black women don't get our protection", but a black woman is certainly less likely to be getting the same degree of protection out of the law; a law which entrenches existing inequalities and privileges. Simply as an empirical matter, the group of people who will be getting the most protection out of the law are rich white men.

Brennan, look at who is over represented in writing, interpreting and judging the law.

Ah yes, because some forms of discrimination are noble and do not make you appear a hypocrite.

You're being sarcastic but yes, its true. Attempting to address old injustices so that all groups achieve success and representation at the highest levels is noble. The theory is that it becomes self-sustaining and affirmative action can be withdrawn.

This is a Red Diamond thread, if you can't make a point without being rude perhaps you should not be here.

What about overwhelming sarcasm and bad faith?

Yes, we need more anecdotes.

A man sarcastically dismisses a woman and women's points of view in a thread about misogyny.

 

[aelf]

And racial discrimination is... racism.

And multiculturalism is... diversity.

By users, the only people with authority to determine the meaning of words. Ask anyone what racism means, they'll answer something along the lines of racial discrimination.

I didn't claim that people using multiculturalism in other ways are wrong. I don't claim to be able to define what word mean.

Note that Cheezy didn't even let open the possibility that people were using a different, and also valid, definition of racism. He just stated that what they described was not racism, period. You will note that the way I approached the definition of the word was entirely different, and with an entirely different purpose.

And his definition contradicts what is to be found on dictionaries, encyclopedias, and popular usage.

It's decidedly unwise to assert that popular usage is authoritative. Popular usage is a convention, and it's useful and often beneficial to work with conventions. But that doesn't mean popular usage is authoritative, since it's likely to be fraught with contradictions, especially with the passage of time. If you're comfortable with calling something that is inconsistent and often contradictory authoritative, then I wonder if you have a natural defense against cognitive dissonance.

Besides, I think it's fairly trivial to get Cheezy to add "as I understand it" every time he mentions racism. It's just that he thinks his understanding (which is not solely his anyway) of the term is better, just as you think your understanding of the term 'multiculturalism' is better. And there are still others like Quackers or Oruc who are uncompromising in their definition of multiculturalism.

I see that you have not understood the nature of the rebuttal.

I have questioned whether privilege exists at all for White men in the UK. In analogising via a situation in which privilege clearly does exist and we can show exactly where it comes from, you are evading the necessity of demonstrating privilege in the case of the UK. Ancient Rome is simply a red herring here.

...

This is a Red Diamond thread, if you can't make a point without being rude perhaps you should not be here.

I'm not being rude. It's a valid observation because you are clearly failing to understand how analogies work in practice. It's silly to claim that an analogy is invalid because the two instances are not equivalent. They're not meant to be! The analogy was purely to demonstrate the point that privilege is not the same as total advantage. It's that simple - and not getting this means you're either being intellectually dishonest or have some natural disadvantage at understanding analogies and what they mean.

Ah yes, because some forms of discrimination are noble and do not make you appear a hypocrite.

Nope. Not if you do not believe that discrimination is prima facie wrong, especially when it is meant to address a greater evil.

 

[cardgame]

Yeah, normally anecdotes aren't exactly sought after, but they could at the very least serve as a jumping off point for some other discussion in this thread.

 

[bhsup]

Nope. Not if you do not believe that discrimination is prima facie wrong, especially when it is meant to address a greater evil.

Okay, you qualified it with the last part, but that's still a ridiculously broad statement. I, for example, am totally okay with discriminating against pedophiles in hiring for elementary teaching positions. Discrimination in and of itself is not good or bad, it depends on how and why you're discriminating.