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

[Manfred Belheim]

Nobody said that privilege and oppressive structures need to ensure that every single member of a dominant group is truly above the rest. Were there no poor Romans in the Roman Republic/Empire? Does the fact that some of them were poor mean that Roman citizens were not privileged? Absurd.

Is there any evidence that the majority of white men (or even a large minority) are given any significant benefit in the modern social structures of the west though? I'm not saying there isn't, and if there is I would like to see it and be convinced, but it does always seem to be just stated as a self-evident fact in these debates and never actually demonstrated. My own impression is that if there is any benefit to white men, it's essentially restricted to the very rich and powerful and any of their friends or colleagues in the "old school tie". But these sorts of people make up a tiny fraction of the population, and outside this group there seems to be no obvious benefits given to men in general, and several examples of where they actually get the worst deal.

The notion that people look after their own is probably a sound one, but I just don't think that a white man will see any other white man as "one of his own" just because he's another white man. I certainly feel no inherent kinship with other white men.

 

[Old Hippy]

Roman citizens were indeed favoured by legislation in the Roman state.

What legislation favours white men in the UK?

any legislation that favours citizens of the UK...

you seem to think that white men are in some other category

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Just like how the wealthy have the most to gain from the protection of the law even if it applies to everyone, I guess.

 

[Evie]

1. The general issue seems to be more one with the gamers community than the internet in general. While in the past there was significant overlap between these two groups, we're in 2014 now and the gamers/social media user overlap doesn't really apply much anymore.

As such, a study focused on figures that have nothing to do with the gamers community (generic public celebrity) tell us nothing about whether or not there is a problem within certain parts of the internet.

2. Likewise, the involvement of politics in this study calls into question its usefulness. While misogyny may at time play a part in abuse toward politicians, in general politicians get abused over politics. Political flame wars are a Thing That Exist. They aren't really relevant, however, to determining whether misogyny exist.

In addition, more prominent political figures would be likely to get more political abuse (duh), and in general, that's a male-dominated field still. IN short, if you involve politician, getting more abuse directed at male figures should be the expected baseline. So it's possible including politicians is going to skew the results badly.

3. As others have already noted, it's not only the amount but the type and impact of those attacks. Not every attack against a woman is based solely on her gender; but how many attack on men are? These are relevant stats on misogyny (and misandry).

4. Finally, one need to consider more than just textual abuse. The internet's reaction to the nude pictures of celbrities leaked online is a shining example of internet misogyny: not only do we treat this as a "scandal" that say something about the female celebrities involved (but nothing about the males also involved), but we wholly ignore the most fundamental issue, which is that someone comitted a very clear sexual crime here by publishing those pictures.

IN short, at least from the article posted in the first post, the study seems highly questionable at best.

 

[aelf]

Roman citizens were indeed favoured by legislation in the Roman state.

What legislation favours white men in the UK?

Who said that it only has to do with legislation?

Is there any evidence that the majority of white men (or even a large minority) are given any significant benefit in the modern social structures of the west though? I'm not saying there isn't, and if there is I would like to see it and be convinced, but it does always seem to be just stated as a self-evident fact in these debates and never actually demonstrated. My own impression is that if there is any benefit to white men, it's essentially restricted to the very rich and powerful and any of their friends or colleagues in the "old school tie". But these sorts of people make up a tiny fraction of the population, and outside this group there seems to be no obvious benefits given to men in general, and several examples of where they actually get the worst deal.

The notion that people look after their own is probably a sound one, but I just don't think that a white man will see any other white man as "one of his own" just because he's another white man. I certainly feel no inherent kinship with other white men.

I do recall studies done on this issue, such as at least one that showed you were more likely to be hired with a white-sounding name than a black-sounding name (first hit on Google).

Such studies seem common or well-known enough, which leads me to wonder how people can claim not to have come across any unless they are really ignorant or are prone to having selective memory.

 

[Evie]

I believe such studies have also been done on lodging (in addition to the ample historical evidence of such phenomenon as neighborhood forcing people to sign contracts agreeing not to sell to wrong-race people). Though I don't have any links handy and could be wrong.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In addition, more prominent political figures would be likely to get more political abuse (duh), and in general, that's a male-dominated field still. IN short, if you involve politician, getting more abuse directed at male figures should be the expected baseline. So it's possible including politicians is going to skew the results badly.

Maybe I misread it, but I didn't think the study was talking about the total amount of abuse faced by males, compared to the total amount faced by males. Rather it was above the average amount received per person, so in that regard the total numbers of either sex don't factor into the equation.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Such studies seem common or well-known enough, which leads me to wonder how people can claim not to have come across any unless they are really ignorant or are prone to having selective memory.

Well... the fact that it's talking about "African-Americans" might explain why I at least haven't heard about it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That is an intersting question, but at the smae time, the reverse is also something worth asking. In this case of "internet misogyny", are women primarily attacked on the basis of their gender? Or do those doing the attacking simply use the insults they feel most likely to hurt their victims?

You guys tell me. For the longest time here, I kept getting referred to as "he" and "him" and for some people no amount of correcting them would get them to wrap their minds around the fact that I'm female. "Girls/women" don't play Civ/computer games!" is one of the refrains I kept hearing. I remember the "Dear Abby" kind of threads where someone would post about girlfriend problems and/or how to get a girlfriend and when I offered a woman's view on the matter, I was either ignored or told I didn't understand. Excuse me?

I remember one thread here about women's fashions in the Middle East. The thread's participants included a lot of male forum members here... and me. And when I offered my opinion as to whether or not the clothing was fashionable and if women would like to wear it, I was told, "Mind your own business."

NOT cool.

Things are much better now; I've been here a long time and we've all become more familiar with, and used to each other. But there was still an incident within the last 3 weeks where somebody expressed surprise that I'm female. Nowadays, there really isn't any excuse - it says so under my username.

So are these gender-based attacks? In most cases, compared to other situations I've been in, I would say no, not on this forum. Most of the guys here are decent people who occasionally have a lapse in courtesy. I've seen other forums and sites where that's not the case, though.

Except in a unique case like South Africa, it is pretty much impossible to be racist against white people. It's never possible to be sexist against men.

Then I must have imagined the hateful stuff one of my aboriginal classmates said to me back in college.

Sexism against men? Obviously I've never been the target of it, but it does exist.

As for stalking, I've been stalked online. It's not anything to laugh about, and pretty hard to do anything to stop when one stalker is in Japan and the other is somewhere in the U.S. but I had no idea where.

Men are stalked online. There was a member of my Doctor Who forum who was obsessed with Tom Baker - stalking him offline and online, causing trouble and stress for him and his family. The most we could do was kick her off the forum and warn other Tom Baker sites to beware of this woman; she's the kind you read about in the paper who get arrested for celebrity stalking - completely nuts.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The homeless people in sleeping bags along our beach are overwhelmingly white men. Where's their 'privilege'?

overly-divisive issues like sexism and racism.

The theories leave a lot of blank space for malice and harm to inhabit. If you happen to get a gun pulled on you for jogging in the wrong neighborhood in Peoria you count your blessings nobody fired, that your health and jogging companion are intact, and you realize that oppression isn't the only thing that matters if you set yourself in opposition to hate and bigotry.

I've had some experiences in certain areas of an evening which don't gel very well with this statement.

I thought the most powerful man in the world is a man of colour and perhaps the next person to take that mantra could be a woman. That is unless the Americans are being controlled by the Illuminati who secretly run everything. Don't forget that you nation once had a female leader and has a female head of state. But you can live in your fantasy world world where you can hate yourself for being white and male so you can eventually feel good about fighting the system.

Then I must have imagined the hateful stuff one of my aboriginal classmates said to me back in college.

Wow, holy White People Tears. I'm sure you getting picked on in school was terrible. As was being "made to feel uncomfortable." That's not sarcasm, I know that stuff isn't pleasant. But as I literally just explained (and have done a thousand times before on this site, if you can hear me through all the White People Whining, racism has nothing to do with casual expressions of hostility.

You got made fun of. They had their land taken from them, are forced to live on reservations, and treated as second-class citizens.

You were made to feel uncomfortable once or twice. They're surrounded by a society that casually regards them as dangerous, volatile, and borderline-beastly.

There's some homeless white guys. So the system eats their own. It's not a caste society, and plus, there are multiple levels of oppression which overlap. The rich prey on each other, too, that doesn't mean they don't still run things for their mutual benefit as a class.

You think racism and sexism are "minor, overly divisive" issues. Because you're White and Male, and not affected by them.

Stop and think for a second about the narrowness of your own anecdotes before you angrily flail at the keyboard because someone dared to suggest that you might have it better than someone else simply because of your identity. And please, please read the post you're responding to, because you look awfully silly when you restate the exact same thing I just explained was false.

Moderator Action: This is trolling. You've started your post in a rude way, dismissing the experiences and contributions of other forum members on the basis of their skin colour. Please avoid doing this, particularly in RD threads. Additionally, approach your posting in a less confrontational manner, calmly explaining your points rather than essentially attacking those who disagree.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Well I for one just don't accept your definition of what racism or sexism is. It's all very well to say you've "explained" it multiple times, but from my point of view you've merely stated it and haven't convinced.

I just see it as a refusal to accept that shades of grey exist, or making all-inclusive statements about a reality which is more complex than that. Yes, it simplifies debate and bolsters opinion to describe the world in such absolute terms, but I don't think that helps if it isn't justified to do that. It merely enables one to be wrong with authority (as a hero of mine once said).

Your stance just seems to boil down to saying that because one side suffers something worse (or did historically), then it's entirely unfeasible that the other side can have ever suffered, or could ever suffer, at all. Which I find to be nonsensical. If I walk into the wrong area at night and get beaten to a pulp by a gang of Asians simply for the colour of my skin, then I'm as much a victim of racism as anyone. What my "people" may or may not have historically suffered doesn't come into it on an individual level. And if your position is that racism doesn't affect anyone on an individual level, then how can it even work? (And I accept that that might not actually be your position, but that's how I read it)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You're on the internet brosif. The world is at your fingertips. Don't take my word for it, type it into Google, if you actually care about whether it exists or not.

 

[PhroX]

The basic problem with how Cheezy defines racism and sexism is that it's not how, well, pretty much everyone else in the world defines them.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yessir, threats of violence with a gun are holy white people tears. Sure was uncomfortable. At what point does hatred not fitting your narrative get to count as worthy? Does somebody need to die? Does it still not count then?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Oh, look, a 2-second Google shows you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

https://www.google.com/#q=structural+racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalized_discrimination

Moderator Action: This sort of post isn't acceptable in an RD thread. Make your case rather than simply posting links.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Truronian]

I think this kind of misses the point. Firstly, abuse and misogynistic abuse are not the same thing. Men may well receive more abuse on-line, but how much of that is purely down to their gender?

I also think the comparison shouldn't be made between men and women, but between on-line an 'IRL'. In general, do women experience more misogyny on-line or off-line? I'm lucky enough to live in a community where misogyny and bigotry in general are rare; so from my perfective the answer to that question is clear: on-line misogyny is worryingly prevalent.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Oh, look, a 2-second Google shows you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

https://www.google.com/#q=structural+racism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalized_discrimination

I don't even have to click the links to see what's wrong with this picture.

 

[Kennigit]

I dont quite get why you assert institutional racism is the only racism

Sure you can say it's the only form that needs to be addressed on a policy basis but to deny that individuals can be racist on their own without any historical basis for their racism is silly

Just don't say something is impossible when it clearly is.

 

[Evie]

Maybe I misread it, but I didn't think the study was talking about the total amount of abuse faced by males, compared to the total amount faced by males. Rather it was above the average amount received per person, so in that regard the total numbers of either sex don't factor into the equation.

I think you misunderstood me; I'm not talking about total number of abusive post.

I'm talking about how adding a predominantly male group that is more likely to face abuse (due to the nature of political discussions), is going to skew averages.

EXAMPLE:

We are trying to determine how many marbles kids who live near the marbles store and kids who live far from it have.

Our 200 far kids have 2 marbles each. Our 200 close kids have 3 each instead.

We then add 20 more kids whose parents are really, really rich. Being really rich, they live predominantly far from the marble stores in the wealthy neighborhood. So while the 4 kids who live near the toy store have 30 marbles each, the 16 who don't have 20 each.

This adds up to 720 (600+120) marbles for the "near" kids, and 720 (400+320) for the "far" kids. On average, the far kids have 3.33 marbles each, versus 3.52 marbles for the "close" kids. One would presumably conclude that living distance from the toy store has only the most marginal impact on marble ownership...despite the fact that each "close" kid has 50% more marbles than a comparable "far kid"!

(The 16-4 ratio, incidentally, is a very close approximation to the M:F ratio in the British parliament (78-22).

In short, introducing a group that is likely to have a dispoportionate number of abusive post toward them (compared to other groups), and that is likely to heavily skew toward males (or "far kids") is going to skew the average iinto pointlessnes.

All the more so since not even all politicians are equal: higher-ranked, more visible politicians (ministers and whatnot) are more likely to face abuse than unknown rank and file. And the skew in favor of men become more and more noticeable at that level.

Without evidence that the study controlled very carefully not only for total number of men/women, but also for the total number from each field, and their relevance in those field, the average is likely of very little value.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yessir, threats of violence with a gun are holy white people tears. Sure was uncomfortable. At what point does hatred not fitting your narrative get to count as worthy? Does somebody need to die? Does it still not count then?

No, it doesn't count, because it's still not racism.

What part of this aren't you getting? It's not about individual attitudes or your white people feel-feels. You cannot be the victim of racism because your race dominates society. Even if the president is Black, even if he came from poor origins, even if the president is female, even if the cop beating down the Black man on the street is still himself Black, they are upholding and defending a White, Male-run society which reinforces the rule of their respective social classes.

You have privilege. Get that through your head. Let's say he had killed you. You know what would happen? An actual police investigation. News time on your death, on the capture of the criminal once he was apprehended. You know why? Because you're White. They don't report on the murders of poor black girls so often, and they are never as quick to start up a search for the murderer or robber of a Black person. It's often dismissed as "well they kill/rob each other anyway." People just don't care that much, certainly not the police. No one says that about White people, either, even though we certainly do that to each other too.

Moderator Action: Phrases such as 'get that through your head' are much too confrontational for an RD thread. Please be more civil in future.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889