A woman's opinion is the mini-skirt of the internet

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A woman's opinion is the mini-skirt of the internet (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/laurie-penny-a-womans-opinion-is-the-miniskirt-of-the-internet-6256946.html)


An opinion, it seems, is the short skirt of the internet. Having one and flaunting it is somehow asking an amorphous mass of almost-entirely male keyboard-bashers to tell you how they'd like to rape, kill and urinate on you.

[ed miliband]

penny gets a lot of horrible shit from nutters but she's a mediocre journalist and a careerist looking to recuperate radical movements for her own ends. and this article is two years old already.

e: obviously the two don't follow, she shouldn't get "horrible shit" said to her regardless of my opinion of her work / career. sorry if that seemed insensitive.

[kashkin]

Sexism is rampant on the internet, I guess because sexists aren't called out as much as they would be in real life and if they are, they are still behind a screen.

Aside from the idea that everyone on the internet is male, look at the vitriol and hatred directed to Andrea Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson and others when they tried to talk about sexism in society.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I am glad that RevLeft doesn't allow female posters to suffer this type of abuse.

[hetz]

I am glad that RevLeft doesn't allow female posters to suffer this type of abuse.
Me too, however that's the same for all normal forums.

[ed miliband]

oh yeah, so yesterday penny used twitter to call to veteran anti-fascists racists for supporting a left-wing critique of multiculturalism (that she isn't aware of such things shows her utter ignorance). she then refused to apologise and blocked both users after she realised how wrong she was.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Youtube 'Laurie Penny David Starkey' and enjoy.

[ed miliband]

i've always disliked penny's writing (far too flowery and one senses it most of her anecdotes are embellished at the very least) and politics (labour -> lib dem -> labour -> 'radical anarchist leader of the rebellious youth'), i've never particularly thought she was a nasty person or whatever. her recent behaviour has convinced me otherwise, and her willingness to denounce all criticism of her as racist, homophobic, or misogynist is really quite despicable. it seems the only "privilege" she doesn't wish to challenge is her own.

[GoddessCleoLover]

She seems to be a petit-bourgeois writer whose politics vacillate from labor to neoliberal and back again, yet who is adept at playing the identity politics game whenever it suits her interests. Please keep her on your side of the "pond".;)

[ed miliband]

She seems to be a petit-bourgeois writer whose politics vacillate from labor to neoliberal and back again, yet who is adept at playing the identity politics game whenever it suits her interests. Please keep her on your side of the "pond".;)

nah, not "neoliberal" - if anything "neoliberal capitalism" is the only type of capitalism she's against, in favour of some sort of social-democratic reformism (which she thinks is incredibly radical of course).

and she's on your side of the pond and has been for quite some time, covering ows and all that.

[GoddessCleoLover]

nah, not "neoliberal" - if anything "neoliberal capitalism" is the only type of capitalism she's against, in favour of some sort of social-democratic reformism (which she thinks is incredibly radical of course).

and she's on your side of the pond and has been for quite some time, covering ows and all that.

Thanks for the 411. IMO the OP made an important point in that whatever Ms. Penny's shortcomings those who called for her to be subjected to multiple sexual assaults engaged in despicable conduct. The points raised by Ed Miliband are also interesting since they point out that Ms. Penny is unlikely to join us at the barricades.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I am glad that RevLeft doesn't allow female posters to suffer this type of abuse.
Which isn't to say that RevLeft doesn't suffer from misogyny from time to time.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Youtube 'Laurie Penny David Starkey' and enjoy.

Holy crap! That was too painful to watch all the way through.

That dude just set her up and then sat back and watched her bury herself.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Which isn't to say that RevLeft doesn't suffer from misogyny from time to time.

I was saying much less than that. Misogyny exists in RevLeft. Certainly exists within the proletariat. Also exists among those of us who fancy ourselves as Marxians. It is a will be a serious issue for a long time.

[doesn't even make sense]

To say misogyny is rampant on the internet is like saying cheese is at times consumed in France.

[hetz]

Misogyny exists in RevLeft.
Where do you see it?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Where do you see it?

Fair question. The following sentence was to the effect that misogyny is an issue among all men, including those of us who self-identify as Marxists. Taken as a whole this means that misogyny is a problem that is pervasive. RevLeft does a good job dealing with this issue. Nonetheless, to paraphrase Rosa Luxemburg we ought to be willing to be critical and self-critical in our approach to the misogyny issue. Misogyny is a social problem that has existed for thousands of years. Can we really say that we operate free of the weight of that history?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Where do you see it?
Over the summer, there was a thread where more than one male comrade was defending the street harassment of women. That's just one example.

[Hiero]

I am glad that RevLeft doesn't allow female posters to suffer this type of abuse.

Actually we have periods where users have expressed a worrying level of sexism towards fellow female users. That results in a further shit storm rather then a confrontation against the sexists. The thing with sexism, like racism, is they are embedded ideas, rather then just opinions. So when sexism rears its head here, there is a bunch of users who came to deny its existance (nearly every time male).Revleft has always had a problem with sexism, as has the whole movement.

[hetz]

Over the summer, there was a thread where more than one male comrade was defending the street harassment of women4
Do you happen to have a link to that?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

4
Do you happen to have a link to that?

It did happen, and it was slightly embarassing.

I think there's a careful line to toe between decrying sexism, both implicit and explicit, and not ending up in a situation where every time a guy chats to a girl she immediately thinks 'this guy just wants to assault me in some way'.

And whilst I really don't like the latter, it can be seen as a natural reaction to the sexism and misogyny that has been prevalent since the beginning of human history and, to that extent, is quite understandable, though of course sad, because some of us do genuinely just like chatting to people, to men, to women etc., and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that if it's good natured.

Sadly, a lot of the time it goes from good-natured to all-out sexist and I think a few male comrades on here don't realise that.

[hatzel]

I know I'm not really dragging us any closer to the topic here, but this reminds me why I'm more than happy to steer clear of the Twittersphere (ooh, that sounded nice), particularly when it comes to politics. Just checked out her feed, and saw the hubbub around the IWCA article, and...well, it's easy to see why I think trying to have theoretical discussions over Twitter is a fruitless endeavour. Not that I expect she really had all that much to say about the article, but even if she did, and if she were the most remarkable cultural theorist of our generation, the 140-character limit on Twitter posts means that it's effectively impossible to actually articulate a worthwhile critique. I feel there's a really strange moment when the other party demands she justify her claim that it/they are racist - a reasonable request on the face of it, because you can't run around making those kinds of accusations without backing them up - even though there should surely be a recognition that her reply will necessarily be wholly inadequate, such are the limitations of the medium (I haven't read the article in full, but I can easily see it's long enough to require at least a decent paragraph by way of critique, even if one were to take incredibly broad strokes). I don't see how anybody can expect a serious theoretical discussion to emerge when it will inevitably consist of little more than shallow one-liners and/or pinging links back and forth :confused:

...I could nudge us back towards the OP for a moment here, actually: of course the kind of behaviour she's commenting on is pretty widespread across the internet - people have suggested all sorts of reasons for this, and why people may be more likely to make such offensive comments to people through the internet than they would in a face-to-face situation, we don't need to cover that again. But at the same time, I can't help but feel that Twitter encourages it to a certain extent. Or, maybe 'encourage' is too strong a word, but...as blogs or discussion forums allow people to post longer replies, I feel they cultivate a certain possibility for serious in-depth discussion of opinions (even if a quick look over the internet shows that this isn't always manifested :lol:), they can 'feel' like vaguely intellectual cyberzones, for want of a better word - this may in fact act to discourage vacuous single-sentence replies to opinion posts, as people may consider it a failure if one is incapable of fleshing out their arguments and positions across a paragraph or two. Twitter, on the other hand, by allowing nothing but single-sentence replies (which always tend towards vacuousness), constitutes a distinctly deintellectualised space, where snappy one-liners can never be considered a failure, or a sign of theoretical weakness. Perhaps the (attempted) introduction of theory and opinions to Twitter - a space which is clearly unsuited for such use - creates a certain dissonance which invites this kind of interaction built more on the exchange of insults than the exchange of ideas. Here I'm speaking of a more general trend, insults which may be directed at men or women alike (albeit in different ways), rather than the specifically sexist behaviour she's highlighting.

[Luís Henrique]

oh yeah, so yesterday penny used twitter to call to veteran anti-fascists racists for supporting a left-wing critique of multiculturalism (that she isn't aware of such things shows her utter ignorance). she then refused to apologise and blocked both users after she realised how wrong she was.

That's despicable, but it doesn't have any to do with she being harassed by e-morons.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Where do you see it?

It's a long time since I last checked chit-chat, but it used to be rampant there. In the form of jokes, or course, but some were quite heavy (such as one about raping fascists, for instance).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Do you happen to have a link to that?

I think she was talking about this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/my-street-my-t169420/index.html?highlight=harassment), even though it has been during spring rather than summer.

There are different understandings of what constitutes harassment, which explains in part the idea that people were "defending street harassment".

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There are different understandings of what constitutes harassment, which explains in part the idea that people were "defending street harassment".
No, there were people defending street harassment, even if some male posters seemed to think simply telling a woman "hello" is what women are complaining about.

[Luís Henrique]

No, there were people defending street harassment, even if some male posters seemed to think simply telling a woman "hello" is what women are complaining about.

There certainly was a discussion on whether insistently staring at a woman constitutes harassment. And there were posters arguing that men making weird and directly sexual requests to random women does not necessarily constitute harassment. I don't think anyone went there and said "come on, sexual harassment is OK".

In other words, some posters defended behaviours that you define as harassment; whether such behaviours do actually constitute harassment wasn't established.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

There certainly was a discussion on whether insistently staring at a woman constitutes harassment. And there were posters arguing that men making weird and directly sexual requests to random women does not necessarily constitute harassment. I don't think anyone went there and said "come on, sexual harassment is OK".

In other words, some posters defended behaviours that you define as harassment; whether such behaviours do actually constitute harassment wasn't established.
Men making sexual requests of random women on the street is textbook street harassment. The fact that we even had to debate that demonstrates the sexism taken for granted in society.

Also, it's fairly typical that when a woman calls out street harassment, some man has to point out that it's only her opinion that it is, as if to suggest she's oversensitive (i.e. emotional, something women are always accused of).

[Luís Henrique]

Men making sexual requests of random women on the street is textbook street harassment.

I actually agree with you. In abstract, it shouldn't be, but we don't live in an abstract world, we live in one that is historically determined.


The fact that we even had to debate that demonstrates the sexism taken for granted in society.

So it is, but in a much more complicated way than you suggest.


Also, it's fairly typical that when a woman calls out street harassment, some man has to point out that it's only her opinion that it is, as if to suggest she's oversensitive (i.e. emotional, something women are always accused of).

Certainly, but we are not talking about the feelings of one individual woman in a particular situation; instead, we are talking about how we legislate such issues. This cannot rely on the individual reactions of individual persons in particular situations.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

instead, we are talking about how we legislate such issues.
Before we can even begin to discuss that, we need to discuss the problem of sexism on the Left.

[Luís Henrique]

Before we can even begin to discuss that, we need to discuss the problem of sexism on the Left.

Maybe, but I doubt threads on such subjects will be closed and trashed because we didn't previously discuss the problem of sexism on the left.

Some years ago, I was looking at the street under my window (from the third floor apartment that is my home). There was a couple kissing and petting in a playground nearby. Suddenly the young man started shouting at me, requiring that I leave the window, because I was looking at them. I am pretty sure that them, or at least him, were honestly feeling that I was invading their personal space, perhaps harassing them. But darnit, I was at my home, my private space if there is one, and they were in a very public space, so I just ignored him. Now this may be somehow "telling them how they should feel", but if so I am not in the least concerned. They shouldn't feel bothered at people looking at their kisses if they choose to kiss in a place anyone could look at them. Otherwise life in society become impossible, if the behaviour of people is subject to the whims of people somehow transformed into cogent law.

In Saudi Arabia, asking for a woman to show her face is sexual harassment. I don't think discussing such a subject requires that we previously discuss sexism in the left - much less solve that problem.

But, obviously, the societal rules of other societies are weird and unnaceptable, while the rules of our own are transparent and seem natural.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Maybe, but I doubt threads on such subjects will be closed and trashed because we didn't previously discuss the problem of sexism on the left.
If women are going to be seen and treated as pieces of meat even among some leftist men, and those men are unwilling to examine their own sexism, then this must be challenged by leftist women and anti-sexist men.


They shouldn't feel bothered at people looking at their kisses if they choose to kiss in a place anyone could look at them. Otherwise life in society become impossible, if the behaviour of people is subject to the whims of people somehow transformed into cogent law.
And you looking out a window at a couple making out in public is the same thing as men sexually harassing women on the street, including (as happened to me once) demanding to see their breasts or genitals?


In Saudi Arabia, asking for a woman to show her face is sexual harassment.
Asking a woman to do anything with her body in public is harassment.

[Luís Henrique]

If women are going to be seen and treated as pieces of meat even among some leftist men, and those men are unwilling to examine their own sexism, then this must be challenged by leftist women and anti-sexist men.

Sure, which is what usually happens in revleft when male posters treat women as pieces of meat. Or isn't it?


And you looking out a window at a couple making out in public is the same thing as men sexually harassing women on the street, including (as happened to me once) demanding to see their breasts or genitals?No, I don't think so. As I have said before, I actually agree with you on the issue of demanding to see breasts (or genitals). Where I certainly disagree with you is on the issue of men staring at women. Which while still different, is a lot closer to me looking out of my window, whether at a couple having fun, or just in their general direction. But the point is, if the criterion that distinguishes harassment from non-harassment is how the supposed victims feel, then obviously me looking out of my window is harassment, if it makes someone else feel unconfortable.


Asking a woman to do anything with her body in public is harassment."Please allow me to pass". "Can you stand up for a minute?" "Get out of here, now, there is a fire going on".

Come on. Asking a woman to do things with her body in public is not necessarily harassment. It is because your definitions of harassment are so loose that you get the impression that people are "defending street harassment" when they are not necessarily doing so.

The complementary rule to "looking at a woman's face is sexual harassment" is "a woman showing her face in public is obscene behaviour". Very difficult to have one without having the other.

Luís Henrique

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Where I certainly disagree with you is on the issue of men staring at women. Which while still different, is a lot closer to me looking out of my window, whether at a couple having fun, or just in their general direction.
Looking at someone. I'll agree that can be a grey area to navigate, but I think most people can tell when they're being stared at or ogled rather than simply being looked at.


"Please allow me to pass". "Can you stand up for a minute?" "Get out of here, now, there is a fire going on".
I should have clarified asking women to do something to gratify a man's sexual interest.


It is because your definitions of harassment are so loose that you get the impression that people are "defending street harassment" when they are not necessarily doing so.
My definitions of street harassment aren't "loose." In fact, they would seem to be the common ones based on perusing websites dealing with the topic. This is how one such site defines it:

It ranges from leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments, to more insulting and threatening behavior like vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, and stalking, to illegal actions like public masturbation, sexual touching, assault, and murder.

Gee, I don't see simply looking at someone on there, do you?

[Luís Henrique]

It ranges from leers, whistles, honks, kissing noises, and non-sexually explicit evaluative comments, to more insulting and threatening behavior like vulgar gestures, sexually charged comments, flashing, and stalking, to illegal actions like public masturbation, sexual touching, assault, and murder.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean by "loose definition". If you notice, this encompasses everything from ogling to murder. In other words, it implies that if one stares intently at an unknown woman, he (or perhaps she) is morally equivalent to a serial rapist murderer.

Some of the above go well beyond "harassment" into much more serious criminal behaviour.


Gee, I don't see simply looking at someone on there, do you?

As you said before, there is a grey area, isn't it? Probably with more than 50 shades, I' say. I would rather not leave to a random person at the street the definition of what kind of looking constitutes "leering" and consequently is morally similar to rape and murder, and what is just, well, looking at someone because one finds them pretty or otherwise interesting.

Luís Henrique

[Quail]

Yes, this is exactly what I mean by "loose definition". If you notice, this encompasses everything from ogling to murder. In other words, it implies that if one stares intently at an unknown woman, he (or perhaps she) is morally equivalent to a serial rapist murderer.

No, it doesn't imply that leering and rape or murder are morally equivalent. It says that both are bad things to do, but says nothing about the relative severity of them.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes, this is exactly what I mean by "loose definition". If you notice, this encompasses everything from ogling to murder. In other words, it implies that if one stares intently at an unknown woman, he (or perhaps she) is morally equivalent to a serial rapist murderer.
It's called a spectrum, Luis. It doesn't say things at one end and things at the other are equivalent.

It does happen that when a woman forcefully objects to behavior at the lighter end of the spectrum, the man can escalate things. That's what a lot of men simply don't get, that even minor things on the spectrum can be threatening because women don't know how far it could be taken.