If feminists don't like systems such as Facebook or Twitter, then make their own. If they don't like current sports, then make their own. If they don't like current religions, then make their own. If they don't like anything that is current, then make their own, but don't start using something men have created, and then whinge about it.

'women have always been 'called things' when they speak in a public setting. It's a particular form of sexist abuse that aims to silence women's views and ideas, and undermine their authority.'

As have men always been 'called things'. How do you know that is the aim? Particularly to silence and undermine women? Why is it assumed everything is gendered? Could it not be that people just don't agree? Could it just be that people aim abuse to where they think it might push buttons?

Why do feminists assign motivation to all men? This seems to be a constant in feminism, assigning motivation to men's behaviour.

It's totally irrational. If women feel undermined, if they identify a 'particular form' of abuse, if it makes them feel a certain way, that's all internal to the individual women. To externalise it and assign a motive to all men, or even a particular man, is just ridiculous..

Which brings me to...

'one serious cultural obstacle encountered by any feminist writer is that feminist work has tended to be received as if it emerged from nowhere, as if each of us had lived, thought and worked without any historical past or contextual present.'

And so it should! if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Why should all arguments not be argued just on their merits, in the current society? Why should they be massaged into some continuos narrative that attempts to steal some kind of authenticity from a time that has passed, and from people who are now dead and from other cultures.

Does each 5 year old boy and girl need to be indoctrinated with a guilt/victim complex in an attempt to keep the war going? Is it wrong headed to think little girls should not be brought up with a chip on their shoulder and little boys not brought up in a blanket of guilt?

That boy may just be stealing a toy because he hasn't learned about sharing. But of course he's an abusive misogynist looking to silence and disempower the girl in a particular way.

The reason for male intolerance of female public expression is clear. The Christian bible explicitly states that women may not speak in public. The Roman Catholic church maintains that dogma in its refusal to allow women priests. Things change slowly, but attitudes change even slower. I wouldn't be surprised if women get more abuse than men on the internet, but believe me, they aren't the only recipients of vituperation. I have quit two forums because of thoroughly nasty responses received from the usual clutch of misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic men who love to use anonymous public forums to vent their spleens. Use your wits and make fun of them, don't let it get you down. Keep posting because women do see the world differently from us men, and we sure as hell need as many ideas as we can get if we're to survive the coming crisis of overpopulation and its consequences.

' the usual clutch of misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic men who love to use anonymous public forums to vent their spleens. '

I wonder where the misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic women hang out. I mean obviously the internet was invented for men by men and then women came along, like workplaces I suppose. So now women want a certain standard of behaviour. It makes me wonder whether women are never 'misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic ', or if so, where do they display all this 'misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic ' behaviour.

I think the interesting question in this article is really whether the internet is the real world. When everyone is anonymous, and when hyperbole and irony abound, I really don't reckon it counts.

But go to Essential Baby. It's the best I've found to have a look at a predominately female internet space. Their behaviour is something to study. Perhaps if we never had the internet we would have never known the depths of depravity of Mother's Groups and women's social circles.

Or maybe women are really perfect, it's the 'Male' invention of the internet that is really the problem

It's harder to detect passive aggression, but I wonder if women invented the internet and started there first, whether men would

a) Join, and complain about the comments that could be taken another way, working out whether they are being snide or smug, and wonder what all these women are saying between the lines, or what they say when they're not around.

b) Not pay it any mind, because it's too girly, and invent somewhere where they can slag each other off and use amusing put-downs and laugh at how politically incorrect they can be.

Anyway, these men the author talks about, they're not 'misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic ', they're men with the specific aim of silencing women.

Jessica, great thoughtful piece! Helen

Got to love this. A thread about calling women names and someone who's real name is apparently ybgirp posts "misanthropic, racist, bigoted, homophobic, isolationist, xenophobic men who love to use anonymous public forums to vent their spleens"

Beautiful piece of satire.

Back to the article
I do wonder at times how women feel about the massive negation of the contribution women have made to history which some feminists seem to promote

"rather than stemming from the necessity of having to use a language that is literally man made and embedded with cultural values that are not, and never have been, our own".

Apparently not only have women had no role to play in the shaping of our culture with it's good and bad elements (despite doing almost all of the early nurture of children for a long period) they have apparently not even contributed to the shaping of our language.

I know I find the constant attacks on my gender offensive, I suspect that women could easily find the kind of thinking that basically says that their gender has contributed nothing significant rather offensive as well.

For the record I've been called names by women at times in my online life (and occasionally in the real world), I've been accussed of some pretty nasty stuff by some when I choose to stand up for my opinions on a point of disagreement. I don't hold the entire gender responsible for the behaviour of the few.

R0bert

You know ybgirp I've never had much time for religion, any of them. However if those Christians got their edicts on women so right, I had better go & have a serious look at that one.

They might be right about a lot of stuff, if they got that one so right.

ybgirp,
If feminists don't like current religions, develop their own.

Lets see that reliogion, or lets see anything developed by feminists other than male bashing women's study courses in universities, male bashing websites, and male bashing feminist magazines.

The longer a woman spends at university the less she knows.

Jessica,

As one famous feminist said, if it were up to women we'd still be living in caves. She certainly had a point.

Take yourself for example. You aren't doing a degree in engineering, or architecture or science or anything that will acutually produce anything. Instead you are working very hard at ways to manipulate men to improve the lives of women.

I can't blame you. Many women today have the same sense of entitlement. We have a female PM (hasn't she been a success?) and numerous female premieres and Gs-G, but still people like you bleat on about...well men.

So your latest temper tantrum is about technology? Technology has tranformed our lives in a myriad of ways unimaginable just decades ago. It has transformed the way we live, work and play and intertwinded itself into the very fabric of our existence. We refelct in awe at how a heart machine could keep people alive during a transplant or a bionic ear allow them to hear for the first time ever. But when you look at this life saving, and life changing technology, you just know it didn't come from the mind of a woman.

You can continue with your childish demands and temper tantrums if you like. i'm sure you will. In fact, you'll go back to your university sisters and empathize with one another. Then you'll lash out at men again then do some more empathizing, then some more lashing out at patriarchy...all the while feeling much more that equal. But of course convincing yourself that that is all you want.

At the end of the day, you, like all feminists are nothing but a fraud.

dane, "you just know it didn't come from the mind of a woman."

The heart machine may not have, the roles played by both genders in the past made it difficult for women to have the education and career to do most of that inventing. When women have had opportunity though they have been more than capable of inventing things that make lives better.

As a start have a look at
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/inventions/10-things-that-women-invented10.htm

and a similar list at http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0906931.html

The game of attacking the other gender is just as vile regardless of which gender does the attacking or which is on the receiving end.

R0bert

R0bert,
It would have been females who called you unkind names. I don't believe women would do such a thing.

And let’s not forget Australia’s own witch-burning of conservative women's advocate, Melinda Tankard Reist - a reprehensible cluster of behaviours by no means limited to men.

As quoted in Renate Kleins’ defence of MTR at: (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/25/3415534.htm)

"So, has anyone found naked pictures of #mtr? She is rootable in that religious feminist way." (Duncan Fine, Tweet)

And this:

"Have an abortion, too. Then she'll really hate u RT @geofflemon: Going to watch porn this week to piss @MelTankardReist off #qanda." (Leslie Cannold, Tweet)

And this, as reported in the Age online by MTR herself:

‘[I receive] explicit descriptions of what a man (anonymous, though identifying as male) would like to do to me. And a couple of death threats. I am asked to send in pictures for 'arse' or 'boob' appreciation societies.’

Using bigger words, but no less vitriolic, is the anti-MTR (and supporters) campaign by anti-Christian, anti-'sheep' activist, Jennifer Wilson (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3729758.html):

‘Their condemnatory judgment of women who do not wholly agree with them is an indicator of their emotional immaturity, as they attack like adolescents in a playground gang.’

Yeah, right. Witch-burning 101.

Robert,

What a blessing it was to read that list. I have to admit feeling a bit overwhelmed on learning it was women who invented the choc chip cookie, the square bottomed paper bag and the dishwasher. Just think of that. All this time I thought there wasn't really much swimming around in those big brains of theirs when in fact it was women who invented choc chip cookies all along. How wrong was I?

Thank God for women. And thank God for men like you with the courage, perspicacity and sagaciousness to point out to other men the greatness of women. Thank god for male graduates of women's studies classes too.

I'm rather pleased to have windscreen wipers on my car. Perhaps in protest at that one you could remove yours and hop out and wipe the windscreen by hand when the need arises.

I note that you listed a couple of minor points and ignored a couple of more significant ones (medical syringe, compilers for computers, fire escapes etc).

Never been in a women's studies class and from what I've seen of the views of those overly immersed in that stuff they are as off balance as those men who put women down.

Women have not generally had a lot of opportunity to be party to many of the big inventions or construction projects, the roles assigned by society have severely limited opportunities on that front for most.

Those roles were generally derived from previous practical necessities which had passed their use by date and morphed into "the way things are" type conventions. Conventions which as far as I can see have generally been as vigorously defended by women as by men.

Feminists who claim that it's all been a big conspiracy by men to oppress women annoy me but so to do men who put down women over consequences of past structures.

R0bert

robert,

There are no structures in place that hold women back. In fact, it is in countries which are the richest and most 'equitable' where women concentrate the most in traditional women's industries like nursing and teaching. The evidence points to the fact that when women are unencumbered by economic constraints they select jobs which cater to their inherent interests such as working with people over things. In poorer countries, where economic issues are paramount, women choose jobs which offer financial incentives over interest.

Women have had every opportunity to participate in the technological revolution, even invented a compiler (as you mentioned), but in the main they have chosen not too. It would be nice for women to take responsibility for their decisions occasionaly rather than constantly blaming men and some fanciful 'patriarchy', or have some patsy argue their case for them.

I note that when I talked about technology the thing that struck me was the comprehensive way it had transformed out lives. The way it had saved so many lives like with heart machines and so on. Yet put technology in the hads of a women's studies graduate and what do we get? A rant about some men's online comments. Talk about mediocrity.

Dane,
Agree fully.

Few women are enrolling in much outside of teaching, nursing and arts courses. All the heavy lifting is being left to men, and that includes just about everything outside of nursing, teaching, and arts courses.

How about, instead of whinging about men, feminists get together and figure out a way to stop obesity, or world hunger, or running out of oil, or develop a cure for cancer, or save the world from total debt.

Anything constructive will do.

Wow boys! I had no idea you were such an impressive lot. Fancy achieving all that with no support from the opposite gender.

It's been fun sitting outside you tree-house secretly listening to your catalogue of triumphs. But all good things must come to an end - it's getting dark and mum's yelled out to come in for tea (RObert's already home helping her set the table)

Couldn't help yourself could you Poirot. But I must thank you for making 3 good points for me:

1. robert - you are such a patsy that even women ridicule you.

2. boys make tree houses. Girls stay out in the rain.

3. women, and I'm assuming you see yourself as a woman (after being so derogatory to us 'boys'), are mostly found in the kitchen. Maybe it was you who 'invented' the chocolate chip cookie?

Dane,
Men would make the tree house, (as they have built every building on the planet to my knowledge).

A feminist would then move in and describe it as being too patriachial and oppressive of women.

Au contraire, dane.....RObert would be regarded as a "man" who realises that good communities encourage cooperation between both genders in all areas.

Listening to you and vanna is like being back in a primary school playground. This forum comprises nearly all blokes - thank goodness they don't all carry on like you two.

Poirot,
I'll have to remember to talk very feminist like, without mentioning words such as "lady" or "gentleman", or "husband" or "wife".

Or father.

I agree that we should encourage cooperation between genders. So how come you're criticising me (and males) rather than the misandry in the article? How about you make a post criticising the article for not helping attempts for both genders to get along?

Or should both genders only get along when men are saying something women don't like?

Judging from your references to tree-houses, boys and primary schools, you find homely references comforting. Don't feel bad, many women do. But if you find my direct style of writing difficult to understand, let me know and I'll try to make it a bit more homely for you. I've started just in case:

Once upon a time, a mum was in her kitchen cooking cookies when a packet of choc chips fell off the shelf into the mixing bowl...

dane,

Maybe you're the ones who should respond to the article in a more thoughtful manner. You and vanna tar all women with the same brush - you're no different to the article writer....and no I certainly don't agree with all feminist rants.

Do either of you ever stop to think that industrialisation was always on a collision course with female emancipation and a shift in the paradigm - one thing lead(s) to the other.

You don't intimidate me with references to homely....I like homely and I can even be twee when it suits me.

Poriot,
I think you keep trying to convince yourself that feminists have a conscience.

There was “patriarchy”, and guess why? It was not to oppress women.

It was to stop a woman from wandering off with the next man who came along and had more money.

And it was to stop a woman from killing the baby if she felt like it.

Feminism now tries to legitimise that.

One of the things I find really sad with these pieces is that we have an article that gives a fairly clear demonstration of the nonsense touted by some feminist extremeists which could be a trigger for some useful discussion of what's wrong with that thinking and as usual a small group of presumably male posters seem determined to distract attention from that debate by expressing views about women even more abhorent than the views of men in the original article.

Happens time after time, I sometimes suspect that a couple of posters are working for some feminist PR department posing as stereotypes of "masculine" thinking, when something pop's up that shows the demonstrates how devisive some forms of feminism are they swing into action posting in a way that's sure to focus attention on male attitudes to women rather than on anything constructive. Unfortunately I doubt that's the case, those probably are real attitudes. Just as bad if not worse than the extremes of feminism that they so hate.

In the mean time there is little or no discussion of some of the deep flaws in the original article. The suggestion that women have not had a role in developing our language being one worthy of discussion.

R0bert

Robert,
Of course there are deep flaws with the article. I've never know a feminist to get anything right.

Feminism is like basing arithmetic around the concept that 1 + 1 = 11.

This is not accurate, and subsequently anything else in arithmetic based on that concept will be flawed and inaccurate.

The article is just more male bashing, and based on the belief that anything developed by men is patriarchal and oppressive of women.

The basic principles of feminism are flawed, and subsequently anything else that follows will be flawed.

vanna I'm more of the view that much of the core analysis is flawed rather than all the basic principles.

Eg one of the common principles is equality of opportunity. Sometimes that's a mantra rather than something that's reflected in reality but as a principle and as I understand it I agree with it. I don't agree with all the variation of it (eg hobbling those with ability or interest to make a level playing field) but do think as far as possible institutional restrictions based on gender, race, parents financial situation etc should not stand in peoples way.

Stepping to a parallel of the issue. I believe that the core of thiestic religions is fundamentally flawed, once I believed in a god but I've reached the conclusion that there is no credible evidence for that stance. The flawed foundation of thiestic thinking does not mean that I assume that thiests are unable to reach valid conclusions on any issue where their faith may be a factor.

It does mean that on any issue where the justification is "God said" I can pretty much ignore the argument, it also means on other issues where the thiest is using a range of contrived justifications to support a view that other thiests use the "God said" rational for I'll be looking pretty closely for bias.

Where an author bases their case on historical male oppression of women in western society it starts to look like a "God says" argument. Where they assume that the oppression is so bad that women have played no role in shaping society or even the language they use they don't have a lot to say.

No if the author cared to address the issue on the basis of the difficulties facing those taking part in online discussions when confronted with strongly abusive or intimidation reactions I'd be much more interested in the points being made.

R0bert

They're fruit loops r0bert. I don't think they even comprehend what you're on about.

I can see that it frustrates you that you associate with fruit loops, you seem to be objecting to the same thing as the fruit loops, hey , maybe you are a fruit loop too.

I'm as interested as you are in some of the flawed logic of much feminist social commentary, but in the end you have to accept that if you disagree, you're just the same as those guys.

Misogynist!

That's what you are r0bert.

I get what you are saying, but I am more interested myself in this constant narrative that when any group of males exhibit abusive, annoying or disrespectful behaviour to a woman, it's necessarily some grand conspiracy to 'silence' her, and it's all about gender.

To me, the most offensive thing about all this sort of stuff is the assigning of a motive to men to justify this narrative, to line up all the woe of women throughout history and link it all together in such a simplistic way, and the attempt to extrapolate it to all males.

The actions and motives of a man 100 years ago in a different society DOESN'T have ANYTHING to do with a different clown on an internet blog today.

Its so very immature. It's "I feel x, so that must be the aim of the person that made me feel that way". ie It's all about ME! There's no randomness, there's no individuals, there's just an abusive gender and a victim gender.

Lets face it 'The Patriarchy' is just a short-hand way of saying all men, in conspiracy, together, hating women, and dedicating their lives to it.

People just don't work that way. Patriarchy also includes protecting women. Women, as you say, hold the SAME responsibility for the perpetuation of societies organisational structure as men.

But we hear many feminists on the one hand say men hold all the responsibility for society, but at the same time bemoan the fact that women's contributions have not been recognised. They cant have it both ways.

Houellebecq, you know I'm a sucker for buying into discussions that should be left alone. Never managed to reliably break the habit.

I agree that the narrative in the article and similar ones is much more interesting. Love to see some contribution from the more moderate feminists on the narrative and assumptions of this article.

Is it insulting to women to claim that women have played no significant role in english speaking history including the development of the language?

R0bert

Robert,
Do you think women are amazingly moral creatures who suddenly appeared on the planet?

If so, you are yet another victim of feminist brainwashing.

Women are no more moral than men, and so-called patriarchy was mostly developed to stop women wandering off with the next man who came along and had more money, and to stop women killing their babies if they felt like it at that particular point in time.

My last post on OLO.

Goodbye, and as a man, enjoy your feminist future earning money and handing it over to a woman somewhere.

Could this really be the end of vanna? If I'd have known it was so easy...

I like the 'attitudes to women' ones the best r0bert. The technique is you subtly move from rapists and abusive men, to 'predatory' men, to men who like hardcore porn, to men who like rough sex, to men who even fantasise about rough sex, to men who like to see naked woman, to men who are attracted to beautiful women, to basically all heterosexual men!

I love the 'link' here from some French philosoper from mid last century. Random!

'It seems that not only have the ideas of women been lost, but so has an awareness of the social forces which have worked so hard to keep them buried.'

ie. We need to keep bringing up the past so feminism remains relevant, and we should twist each instance of any woman being abused as being all about gender, add to the grand historical narrative of woe, and assign motives to men accordingly.

'we need to locate #mencallmethings, in a historical continuum of the silencing and oppression of women's voices and viewpoints. '

No we don't actually.

Dare I suggest women show some balls and refuse to be silenced like many men have who got their voices heard in the past, even men threatened with actual death rather than nasty words, and fighting for more weighty aims like slavery and such. This anonymous verbal abuse in response to deliberately divisive social commentary for advertising revenue IS just the internet! An anonymous graffiti board of the bored masses. It's not gender related, hell it's not even personal. It's noise.

There's no doubt about it, if all you have is a hammer...

Houellebecq, sorry somewhat preoccupied with other stuff at the moment.

Agreed re the attitudes to women theme's.
The blurring of definitions seems to be a common theme as are circular proof's which never seem to get back to a stand alone case but always draw on something else in the same chain to make the case.

R0bert

Whilst I disagree with significant aspects of the authors case there are clearly times when sexist abuse is used to try and shut people up.

httpx://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ZdEURJE5

If it's as reported that was a very ugly response.

R0bert

Thanks for this article. I feel so troubled by the hate-speech creeping (marching? driving a racing car?) into acceptable discourse. I've just read an expletive-filled rant in of all things The Age newspaper! Thank you for this reasonable contribution to a public discussion we need to have.