We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

On feminists objectifying women and male versus female styles of trolling

Hillary Clinton objectifies women by reducing them to mere body parts:

Mrs Clinton, meanwhile, said that she would win the nomination and unify the party. She gained perhaps her biggest applause of the night for taking on the moderators of this and past Democratic debates.

There had been “not one question about a woman’s right to contraceptive health care”, she said. In spite of attempts in some states to impose limits and “a presidential candidate, Donald Trump, saying women should be punished (for abortions)” it had not been discussed. “It goes to the heart of who we are as women,” she said.

So Secretary Clinton believes that the core of a woman’s identity is decided by her stance regarding contraception or abortion (as if all women had the same stance), or, more limiting yet, decided for her by the stance of her local jurisdiction regarding contraception and abortion. Time was when feminism was about refusing to define women by so-called women’s issues.

While I am on the subject of the decline of feminism, Guardian Clickbait-profiteer Jessica Valenti says in an article for which comments are closed,

I’m tired of having to explain, over and over again, why the tone of the comments under my pieces is indeed sexist

I strongly agree that the Guardian moderators have the right and are right to delete insults and ban those uttering them. When it comes to threats they should contact the police in any case where it appears that the threat might be credible.

But I’ve read many, many Guardian feminist articles and their accompanying comments and observed a few things.

The typical insult thrown at a woman writing online by a male troll is vile by convention. He will either denigrate some aspect of her physical appearance or sexuality, or will call her by the name of a body part. Conventions matter. These insults still hurt because all sides know they are meant to hurt. But looked at objectively, they are meaningless. The things referred to are not actually bad things. I am a woman who writes online and I have had a few such insults. I mentally sent them back to their originators with knobs on, then turned to other matters.

The typical insult thrown at a man writing online by a female troll (the Guardian sub-species of which is usually found writing above the line) is to accuse him of something that, if true, would actually be vile. She will typically call him a “misogynist”, a hater of women. That really is a bad thing to be. Worse still, she might call him a rape-apologist, a rape-enabler, or a would-be rapist. To truly be any of these things is evil. Yet such terms are frequently thrown around very casually at targets who have done no more than act in what the feminst writer sees as a sexist way, behaviour which may even be acknowledged by the writer to be unconscious, or at those who have simply expressed disagreement with her version of feminism.

I’ve had a few of this type of insult too, in the days when I used to comment on the Guardian website using a screen name that did not clearly indicate my gender. They made me far more angry than the body-part type of insult. What did I do to get me called a rape-apologist? I argued that not every claim of rape is true.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on TumblrShare on RedditShare on Google+Share on VKEmail this to someone

17 comments to On feminists objectifying women and male versus female styles of trolling

  • Paul Marks

    Hillary Clinton is depressing – but the Guardian is even more depressing.

    Mrs Clinton is less depressing as it is becoming clear that she does not really believe this stuff (or believe in anything – apart from her divine right to rule, and steal things she likes), Hillary Clinton is just going-through-the-motions when she speaks.

    The Guardian types are more like Bernie Sanders.

    They actually mean all this crack brained nonsense.

  • staghounds

    Harry Potter is a fictional character, and some person calling you a bitch*, rape apologist, giraffe, or Olympic gold medal winner isn’t some magic spell that turns you into one.

    If all you have is name calling, you lost, you know it, and so do the rest of us. Responding to name calling as if it matters is silly and degrades the responder to the six year olds.

    *I never understood this as an insult, half the hounds and terriers I know are!

  • thefrollickingmole

    The Guardian hires someone to deliberately and knowingly insult 1/2 the people on the planet by virtue of their gender and then gives her more (safe) space for her to whinge about the reaction.

    Her arguments are usually feeble, and any attempt to engage in active criticism of the “facts” she uses will almost always “violate community standards”.

    The commenting guidelines are routinely breached and abused and they complain the quality of discourse is low?

    Absolutely clueless idiots.

  • So Secretary Clinton believes that the core of a woman’s identity is decided by her stance regarding contraception

    Specifically, that it must be provided by Daddy Government. Freedom for women, indeed.

  • llamas

    First line from a Guardian article the other day:

    “How shitty are men really?”

    Bias, much?

    The whole online paper – even the news reporting – is now little more than a constant stream of SJW propaganda. Everything they say and do is focused through that lens. The execrable Ms Valenti (known for her past gloat that ‘I bathe in mail tears’) is considered a mainstream columnist in the Guardian, which should tell you all you need to know about where their needle centers.

    llater,

    llamas

  • Mr Ecks

    The scum of the left can dish it out and like to do so.

    They don’t like to get some back.

    Simple as that.

    It is entirely normal to become incensed when you witness the scum of the Earth insulting you and blowing hard about their dictatorial plans to turn your world into a pile of tyrannical shite.

  • Ramspace

    “Mail tears,” llamas? However, mail–or comments, at least–is the issue. In fact, the increasingly common practice of prohibiting comments on articles has had an interesting effect, on me at least: I don’t read the articles in question. I formerly read those opinion pieces–you know the ones–largely to see what others thought of them. Now I can’t so I don’t. That means fewer clicks on the click bait.

  • Mr Ed

    Well Guido Fawkes linked to this GQ article the other day, about the Guardian being on a financial suicide mission, as that Galactic Drinks Corporation says, share and enjoy.

  • Dom

    I think I got smited! Pity. It was a link to a terrific David Thompson post on this subject.

  • Julie near Chicago

    Paul is correct. Shrill wears the colors of some version of a Marxist (“Portrait of the Marxist as an SJW”?), but money, stuff, status, and power are her guiding lights. And nowadays there’s even a certain dreariness about her chasing after those. Dreariness … not glamour at all. I almost wonder if what’s really driven her all these centuries has been the need to be the center of the Glamour of Itall.

    Whereas Bernie at least seems to be a True Believer. And, what a shrewish little man he can be!

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    Dom, was this the piece by David Thompson you meant?

    So Cruelly Unappreciated

    …Ms Valenti is famed for her ability to mouth mutually dissonant ideas on a regular basis, thus attracting the mockery that so offends her, and while construing double standards as the pinnacle of righteousness. As, for instance, when invading the privacy of a random male commuter on the Tube by snooping at the contents of his phone, apparently at length, and then condemning his “passive sexism.” Apparently Ms Valenti’s fellow passenger wasn’t reading enough tweets by women and was therefore to be denounced in the pages of a national newspaper. Ms Valenti went to assert, via Twitter, that on the Tube women have “no expectation of privacy” because they’re seen as “public property.” Unlike male passengers who find themselves sitting next to a nosey Guardian columnist who’s desperate for something to bitch about in the name of feminism.

    DT’s original is scattered with links to the columns and tweets by Ms Valenti in which she said all these contradictory things.

  • Dom

    That’s he one, Natalie. The discussin following it is also good.

  • Thailover

    I think most thinking people are aware by now that no one is as racist and sexist as leftists are. They spin convoluted definitions of each so that only white people, (particularly white men, which they love to call “European” for some reason) are even CAPABLE of being either racist or sexist. (I’m as European as Whoopi Goldberg is African, exactly 0%. We’re both 100% AMERICANS, goddamnit).

    All the leftists have in their tool box is political equality bullshit. (And no I don’t mean “political equality” as used by Yaron Brook, et al, because they’re equating political equality with equal rights. What the left mean by political equality is politically self-identified groups being on an equal level in every way with every other group, despite innate, even definitional differences, which is insanity).

    Everytime a leftist declares special treatment due towards any group based on gender, race or sexual orientation, they’re beings racist, sexist and LGBT-phobic. Everytime they declare special victimhood and the need for kid-gloves and special dispensation, they’re declaraing that identified members of these groups are weak and can’t be expected to cope with the real world on their own terms. This is what “W” correctly called the soft racism of low expectations.

    Oh, and BTW, Trump never suggested that women should be punished for abortions. He said that IF it’s made illegal that we should still enforce standing laws. (Gasp, whooda thunkit?)

    That the left think it’s GOOD to enforce only they laws they like is part of the problem.

    “…a government of laws, not men” ~ John Adams

  • Eric

    They actually mean all this crack brained nonsense.

    Bah. Valenti is a grifter. She’s too intelligent to believe much of what she writes.

  • Mr Ed

    We should remind the Leftists that they only spout their equality heresy as a mantra becuse the working classes have proved to be unreliable as a means of giving them absolute power.

  • APL

    Bitch: “Donald Trump, saying women should be punished (for abortions)” it had not been discussed. “It goes to the heart of who we are as women,””

    1. There is no right to an abortion.
    2. There is a right to be chaste, but not have someone else pay for your ( or my 🙂 )licentious lifestyle.

    3. Clinton illustrates Trumps error, he should simply have said to Chris Matthews, “If Congress has made abortion illegal,then the penalty prescribed by Congress should be applied to anyone who breaks the law.”

    Elephant trap filled in.

  • Dom: I think I got smited!

    Hmm. I do not see anything from you waiting in moderation.