Assorted Sexism
1. Sexism On A Sexism Community
Some idiot decided to ask the wtf_sexism community whether their cartoon strip website is actually sexist because apparently they really care about feminism. Here's what's written on the homepage for the website (the comic strip is called "bagged and boredom"):
"I tried reading Cathy, but Cathy is a fag and that writer should be dragged outin the street and beaten and raped so bagged & boredom could be in the newspaper."-Seth Marie Nelson
It is this quotation that caused their friend to complain and they've helpfully posted the entire discussion on their wtf_sexism post.
Part One: Vindicate me!
To start with it looks like he's saying he never saw the "joke" in question, then he goes on to say that he never thought to consider it sexist and eventually he goes into full-fledged apologia for misogyny:
u- (8:12:00 PM): if part of your goal with the blog is social commentary it's really remarkable and pretty sad that any of you would miss something like this.
adam outrage (8:12:19 PM): I dunno, I think thats a little extreme. It's not about taking a light hearted approach to rape, it was about making fun of Cathy which i didn't mind
What the f**k is this sh*t? Earlier he's saying he's going to look into it and now he's saying he doesn't mind it. Apparently it's not about taking a light hearted approach to rape. Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Even on a sexism forum this guy seems incapable of recognising the flaws in his argument. He actually seems to get rather upset when his friend W shares criticism for her comments supporting his sexist online comic. Suddenly he doesn't find offensive comments funny anymore and it's at this point that the best response comes from ms_daisy_cutter - "Fuck you, fuck your clueless friend W., and fuck everyone else involved with the strip.
Don't like that? Abandon your quest to have everyone in this comm pat you on the head and give you a cookie for pretending you really give a shit about sexism and homophobia when you're actually trying to get us to justify it, and GTFO."
Looks like a case of "comfortably numb".
(For newcomers - trope namer is the Pink Floyd song which starts with the lyrics: "Hello. Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?")
Part Two: What About Free Speech?
Also the "censorship" card gets played a few times. Er dude, it's your website. Fortunately mmm_carbon comes in with this rather poingnant comment at that stage:
It's not fucking CENSORSHIP to avoid making statments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, or (insert some shitty element of human behavior here)!
It's basic HUMAN DECENCY.
Free speech is a lofty argument to use and it's worrying when it seems to be suggested that it also means you shouldn't be criticised. The essential argument appears to be that they should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences.
Looks like a case of "800 pound gorilla envy"
(For newcomers, "where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Wherever it wants.")
Part Three: Meanings Of Words Change!
There were some criticisms of the homophobic usage of the term 'fag' on wtf_sexism . So, instead of admitting "my bad, we have some offensive language on the site", he goes on to insist that 'fag' doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality unless it's directed at homosexuals!
It's not just something targeted at gay people it's something used to target anyone that's not in the norm and I've been called fag quite a bit in my lifetime, done in anger and with the threat of violence backing it up. I like to think silly uses of it take away it's power perhaps in wrong though.
Oh it's been used in anger? With threats of violence too? Oh that couldn't possibly be a derogatory term linked with homosexuality then, could it? Good day to you sir. *tips hat* *spits*
Then finally there's this gem:
Also I'm pretty sure gay was supposed to mean happy so yeah words change over time.
It's not calling someone homosexual is an insult. No, you've got it all wrong! We're redefining the meanings of words! *facepalm*
It looks like a case of: "Obi-Wan Kenobi"?
(For newcomers: Obi-Wan says that Darth Vader killed Luke's father, then says that he only meant it figuratively. Essentially Obi-Wan is trying to cover up the true answer which is: "Sorry mate, I lied to you.")
Actually I think there should be a new category of "Language Relativism". Sometimes someone losing an argument will try to cover up their tracks by saying that they were actually using language in a different way. Yes, "fag" can refer to a ciggerette or a certain traditional dish. However, they way they meant it was clearly as a derogatory homophobic comment and there's no getting around that.
2. Victim Blaming
There was a blog linked to in wtf_sexism which belonged to a fairly well-known internet troll. This is basically a case of: "fractal wrongness". I bothered to tackle only the very first point and was then corrected by what I can only presume is one of this guy's alternate personas.
To make up for my first entry which was three points in one, this second actually combines a sentiment I have seen in three different places. It's that good old "dressing immodestly and getting drunk means you were asking for it" argument that we've come to love so much.
A (now ex) BNP member who ran for the London Assembly in 2008 made the following comments:
"I've never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime ... Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.
"To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that forcefeeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.
"The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors."
I don't think I need to explain why that's dodgy.
Here's an extract from a lovely little leaflet handed out by some kind-hearted disciples of God preaching Jesus' good news. (Spot the sarcasm in that last comment):
“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states. “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”
Once again, 'nuff said.
Anyway the first point in the blog mentioned earlier links to the an article entitled "Deflating The Rape Scare":
For purposes of tabulating results, a respondent was counted as a "rape victim" if she answered "yes" to any of several questions, including this one:
"Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"
Any woman who ever had the experience of sharing alcohol, having sex with a man, and later regretting it for any reason could answer "yes" to this question.
Let's just look at that again:
"Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"
If they didn't want to surely it's not consensual! We happen to have a certain word beginning with 'r' for non-consensual sex. (Answers of a postcard please.)
Consider the following alternative:
Interviewer: Does your husband regularly hit you?
Respondent: "Yes."
Interviewer: Do you consider yourself a victim of domestic abuse?
Respondent: "No."
Interviewer: Oh well, in that case we shouldn't put you down as ever having been abused domestically!
*facepalm*
This looks like a case of: "Jackson Apologetic"
(For Newcomers: From the movie "A Time To Kill" where Samuel L. Jackson's defence in court is the ill-advised "Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they rot in hell.")
3. Utter Failure To Be Decent Human Beings
Do you want a cookie?
Yeah, I know I shouldn't be surprised to see people being utter dicks on the internet, but this just went further than I could handle. Someone explains a particularly bad date where his date confesses that she had an abortion, breaks down in tears then, while still in tears, offers a blow job which the guy accepts. That seemed like a pretty awful way to treat someone and to give the guy some credit, he doesn't sound like he thinks it was his proudest moment. Then again, this line is pretty damn horrific:
"Now, I know some people have heard the line, "The lapdance is so much better when the stripper is crying." Well let me tell you one thing: the blowjob is not better if there's tears running down your shaft."
(BTW he's referring to a song from the comedy band "Bloodhound Gang" and the song in question, far from being a musical sex tip, is actually intended to induce laughter by being intentionally shocking. That this guy is sick enough to say "oh I heard it made it better, so I thought I'd experiment" it's deeply troubling.)
Things get even worse when the comments start up:
"When a girl says im gonna give you an amazing BJ through her tears, Ill be damned if im not going to accept. thats just rude and would only further her emotional stress."
How f***ing considerate of you. *yuck!*
"She killed her child to be with a guy. She deserves what she gets."
"...it seems that she already did throw her life away and do irrevocable damage to herself when she decided to abort her baby to make her fiance happy. What a dumb whore. I'm sure that isn't her first teary BJ."
This looks like another case of: "Jackson Apologetic"
Some idiot decided to ask the wtf_sexism community whether their cartoon strip website is actually sexist because apparently they really care about feminism. Here's what's written on the homepage for the website (the comic strip is called "bagged and boredom"):
"I tried reading Cathy, but Cathy is a fag and that writer should be dragged outin the street and beaten and raped so bagged & boredom could be in the newspaper."-Seth Marie Nelson
It is this quotation that caused their friend to complain and they've helpfully posted the entire discussion on their wtf_sexism post.
Part One: Vindicate me!
To start with it looks like he's saying he never saw the "joke" in question, then he goes on to say that he never thought to consider it sexist and eventually he goes into full-fledged apologia for misogyny:
u- (8:12:00 PM): if part of your goal with the blog is social commentary it's really remarkable and pretty sad that any of you would miss something like this.
adam outrage (8:12:19 PM): I dunno, I think thats a little extreme. It's not about taking a light hearted approach to rape, it was about making fun of Cathy which i didn't mind
What the f**k is this sh*t? Earlier he's saying he's going to look into it and now he's saying he doesn't mind it. Apparently it's not about taking a light hearted approach to rape. Sorry, but I beg to differ.
Even on a sexism forum this guy seems incapable of recognising the flaws in his argument. He actually seems to get rather upset when his friend W shares criticism for her comments supporting his sexist online comic. Suddenly he doesn't find offensive comments funny anymore and it's at this point that the best response comes from ms_daisy_cutter - "Fuck you, fuck your clueless friend W., and fuck everyone else involved with the strip.
Don't like that? Abandon your quest to have everyone in this comm pat you on the head and give you a cookie for pretending you really give a shit about sexism and homophobia when you're actually trying to get us to justify it, and GTFO."
Looks like a case of "comfortably numb".
(For newcomers - trope namer is the Pink Floyd song which starts with the lyrics: "Hello. Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me. Is there anyone home?")
Part Two: What About Free Speech?
Also the "censorship" card gets played a few times. Er dude, it's your website. Fortunately mmm_carbon comes in with this rather poingnant comment at that stage:
It's not fucking CENSORSHIP to avoid making statments that are sexist, racist, homophobic, or (insert some shitty element of human behavior here)!
It's basic HUMAN DECENCY.
Free speech is a lofty argument to use and it's worrying when it seems to be suggested that it also means you shouldn't be criticised. The essential argument appears to be that they should be allowed to say whatever they want without consequences.
Looks like a case of "800 pound gorilla envy"
(For newcomers, "where does an 800 pound gorilla sit? Wherever it wants.")
Part Three: Meanings Of Words Change!
Click to viewThere were some criticisms of the homophobic usage of the term 'fag' on wtf_sexism . So, instead of admitting "my bad, we have some offensive language on the site", he goes on to insist that 'fag' doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality unless it's directed at homosexuals!
It's not just something targeted at gay people it's something used to target anyone that's not in the norm and I've been called fag quite a bit in my lifetime, done in anger and with the threat of violence backing it up. I like to think silly uses of it take away it's power perhaps in wrong though.
Oh it's been used in anger? With threats of violence too? Oh that couldn't possibly be a derogatory term linked with homosexuality then, could it? Good day to you sir. *tips hat* *spits*
Then finally there's this gem:
Also I'm pretty sure gay was supposed to mean happy so yeah words change over time.
It's not calling someone homosexual is an insult. No, you've got it all wrong! We're redefining the meanings of words! *facepalm*
It looks like a case of: "Obi-Wan Kenobi"?
(For newcomers: Obi-Wan says that Darth Vader killed Luke's father, then says that he only meant it figuratively. Essentially Obi-Wan is trying to cover up the true answer which is: "Sorry mate, I lied to you.")
Actually I think there should be a new category of "Language Relativism". Sometimes someone losing an argument will try to cover up their tracks by saying that they were actually using language in a different way. Yes, "fag" can refer to a ciggerette or a certain traditional dish. However, they way they meant it was clearly as a derogatory homophobic comment and there's no getting around that.
2. Victim Blaming
There was a blog linked to in wtf_sexism which belonged to a fairly well-known internet troll. This is basically a case of: "fractal wrongness". I bothered to tackle only the very first point and was then corrected by what I can only presume is one of this guy's alternate personas.
To make up for my first entry which was three points in one, this second actually combines a sentiment I have seen in three different places. It's that good old "dressing immodestly and getting drunk means you were asking for it" argument that we've come to love so much.
A (now ex) BNP member who ran for the London Assembly in 2008 made the following comments:
"I've never understood why so many men have allowed themselves to be brainwashed by the feminazi myth machine into believing that rape is such a serious crime ... Rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal.
"To suggest that rape, when conducted without violence, is a serious crime is like suggesting that forcefeeding a woman chocolate cake is a heinous offence. A woman would be more inconvenienced by having her handbag snatched.
"The demonisation of rape is all part of the feminazi desire to obtain power and mastery over men. Men who go along with the rape myth are either morons or traitors."
I don't think I need to explain why that's dodgy.
Here's an extract from a lovely little leaflet handed out by some kind-hearted disciples of God preaching Jesus' good news. (Spot the sarcasm in that last comment):
“Scripture tells us that when a man looks on a woman to lust for her he has already committed adultery in his heart. If you are dressed in a way that tempts a men to do this secret (or not so secret) sin, you are a participant in the sin,” the leaflet states. “By the way, some rape victims would not have been raped if they had dressed properly. So can we really say they were innocent victims?”
Once again, 'nuff said.
Anyway the first point in the blog mentioned earlier links to the an article entitled "Deflating The Rape Scare":
For purposes of tabulating results, a respondent was counted as a "rape victim" if she answered "yes" to any of several questions, including this one:
"Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"
Any woman who ever had the experience of sharing alcohol, having sex with a man, and later regretting it for any reason could answer "yes" to this question.
Let's just look at that again:
"Have you ever had sexual intercourse when you didn't want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?"
If they didn't want to surely it's not consensual! We happen to have a certain word beginning with 'r' for non-consensual sex. (Answers of a postcard please.)
Consider the following alternative:
Interviewer: Does your husband regularly hit you?
Respondent: "Yes."
Interviewer: Do you consider yourself a victim of domestic abuse?
Respondent: "No."
Interviewer: Oh well, in that case we shouldn't put you down as ever having been abused domestically!
*facepalm*
This looks like a case of: "Jackson Apologetic"
(For Newcomers: From the movie "A Time To Kill" where Samuel L. Jackson's defence in court is the ill-advised "Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they rot in hell.")
3. Utter Failure To Be Decent Human Beings
Do you want a cookie?
Yeah, I know I shouldn't be surprised to see people being utter dicks on the internet, but this just went further than I could handle. Someone explains a particularly bad date where his date confesses that she had an abortion, breaks down in tears then, while still in tears, offers a blow job which the guy accepts. That seemed like a pretty awful way to treat someone and to give the guy some credit, he doesn't sound like he thinks it was his proudest moment. Then again, this line is pretty damn horrific:
"Now, I know some people have heard the line, "The lapdance is so much better when the stripper is crying." Well let me tell you one thing: the blowjob is not better if there's tears running down your shaft."
(BTW he's referring to a song from the comedy band "Bloodhound Gang" and the song in question, far from being a musical sex tip, is actually intended to induce laughter by being intentionally shocking. That this guy is sick enough to say "oh I heard it made it better, so I thought I'd experiment" it's deeply troubling.)
Things get even worse when the comments start up:
"When a girl says im gonna give you an amazing BJ through her tears, Ill be damned if im not going to accept. thats just rude and would only further her emotional stress."
How f***ing considerate of you. *yuck!*
"She killed her child to be with a guy. She deserves what she gets."
"...it seems that she already did throw her life away and do irrevocable damage to herself when she decided to abort her baby to make her fiance happy. What a dumb whore. I'm sure that isn't her first teary BJ."
This looks like another case of: "Jackson Apologetic"