Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Thanks. I love the first comment : "This page has some issues. "
It's not the only one!
Will try to read with an appropriate modicum of perspicacity but I don't know how far I will get... .
@Toraldris said:
Given the definition I guess it means the ability for a virus scanner to "learn" and identify new viruses that it doesn't have virus definitions for. Neat.
>
Not quite-- heuristics are recognizable patterns, and virus scanners that use heuristics scan for and intercept known bad behaviors which they are programmed to recognize.
Thus, trolls can be recognized by what they exhibit behavior-wise, and mods can react to the behavior patterns. I am just stating this as an example. So far, programs for computers only learn in very limited ways, discriminating according to programmed rule sets.
Viruses and potentially unwanted programs are two different things. Just saying....
I speak as an adult and an ex-tech for 30 plus years, not as a mod.
Most people are drawn in and exploited by the troll mentality . . . In other words, people are kind, this is trolled and ridiculed and they get angry/upset etc. Troll wins. This is why trolling is a 'fun' activity for the emotionally inadequate. Ignoring a troll (how they hate that) means also not reading their mire. They of course know when you have reacted by clearly being effected . . . Ignoring means not reading their posts. It is a form of 'Noble Silence' that has many levels of adoption.
You have to be ruthlessly kind to play with Trolls. Tough love is tough. Emotional detachment is a skill that most people have not developed and trolls know this. Bless them.
Did I mention laughter?
Whilst they love laughing at others emotional consternation, laughing, dancing with them . . . not their idea of fun.
One thing I learnt from my early school years is that bullys do not stop until made to stop. In those days most schools here did not have any awareness of bullying and how to handle it.
And s.c. doxing and swatting are only other names for stuff that has been going on always in social life.
But in school I could change my situation by acting/confronting people.
Gossip is always difficult to meet...
... but all of this on this massive scale is totally unbelievable.
Feels like a organisation like Friends + raised awareness would be really welcome on the net.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
I agree @Victorious. But what exactly is it that stops them? I worked with a charge nurse that would yell at you angrily in front of everyone. When she did it to me (I had made a mistake) I went to her a day later, privately, and told her please speak to me privately next time, and apologized again for the mistake. She acted shocked she came across that way (ha), but from then on, she seemed to respect me a lot more.
With the online psycho that went after me and the others, she just disappeared several weeks after her victim won the slander/libel suit against her. No warning, no dramatic exit. Nothing apparent to any of us happened. She's not dead, I know that. Ignoring her did nothing! ANY attention, real or imagined by her, made her worse.
If a person can directly connect with the bully, I've had that work. Trouble is, most in my experience couldn't be connected with. Stopping them is usually not quiet, being unlikely to accept not having the last word. It's a tough one. There are a lot of damaged people knocking around, and to some degree, all of us have the tendency for cruelty when cornered (real or imagined). I have been really hard on people even if I kept most of it to myself. They trigger instant aversion of some sort, and anger comes to me easily. It is ugly and really persistent! It's no wonder that those who act out the most come across as crazy. Living in whatever internal environment that causes them to bully and troll must be a hell realm.
Stopping them is obviously very, very difficult. The evidence of that is everywhere you look. As a society or a race we tolerate and encourage it but sure do hate it when it gets personal.
Maybe if awareness is raised at this type of mass lynching people will recognize the situation and back of? Or even critically question what is going on. Not much drama if only one dog barks.
That is how Friends work? By informing and getting people to make a difference?
Also I think that if those that can prevent this kind of behavior like twitter and facebook etc are not only made aware of the problem but also forced to act to stop it?
Just blurting out ideas and trying to avoid all that lead to central government controlled mass surveillance and storage of data.
You have to 'know their name'. This is the strategy used by the biblical wizard king Solomon. He 'called up' each negative attribute (in modern parlance) or demon in old-speak.
You have to start with little negativities.
Women being victimised, often by themselves, the weak being picked on, the outsider being ostracised are all part of our socialization/animal behaviour.
Monkey mind, troll mind, cruelty, anger, door mat victimisation, bullying etc. we may be familiar with. We may have some of these tendencies as @Hamsaka points out. Exploring our dark side AND extreme fluffy new age empathy may be a dark and unrealistic side, is not easy.
Fortunately the dark side is empty of real being. It is a mask. :thumbsup: .
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Good article! In a nutshell, call a spade a spade, a la Rumplestiltskin (right @lobster ?)
Except it's not that easy. People's minds are not all that clear about identifying monsters versus annoyances. Like Seriouspony said a few times in her blog post, good people are recruited by the 'monster' by their goodness, and participate wholeheartedly in destruction. The human animal behavior is easily exploited, we seem to be always ready to shake our fists or rattle our swords. And it doesn't take 'much' to provide the justification. It's not a place we search deeply within ourselves (exploring our 'dark side'), it's even discouraged or pathologized. It's not like we are brimming with 'good examples' here . An uphill fight, for sure.
But wait . . . am I 'participating' in this problem (rather than the solution) by thinking about it like this? As an uphill fight? Hmmmm . . ..
Good article! In a nutshell, call a spade a spade, a la Rumplestiltskin (right @lobster ?)
People suffer in different ways. People are wounded in different ways. There will be causes why they are mysoginistic, racists or 'monsters'. Compassion only for approved people? Who is going to have compassion for the hell realms and he'll raisers?
Extending our skill set (not prematurely) is hard. We start by being and associating with our better selves.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Do you think 'being wounded in different ways' is an adequate explanation for why some people react to their wounds by hating, and others by becoming more vulnerable than ever? Children grow up in abusive homes, and only a portion come out perpetuating abuse. The same wounding has different results.
It makes me wonder about 'my amygdala is bigger than yours' (amygdala is thought to be the 'flight, fight or freeze' center of the brain). fMRI's show different distribution of brain activities between normal folks and psychopaths. "Wounding" a psychopath is as simple as telling them 'no'. Really. It is as if you have cornered them and inserted the pitchfork part way. What causes wounds like that? Is it even a wound? Or just a way of being that doesn't look all that different from the behavior of the lions who go round killing another's offspring so he can bring the lioness into heat for his own siring? Major eek, I need to go watch cartoons now :buck: happy ones.
@Hamsaka hell realms - not a fun area to explore. Sufficient to say there are levels of haters just as their are layers of compassion. My advice is to move towards the good, towards compassion.
Humans are animals. This is something we must realize. Animal behavior is very common among us, especially when we realize we can get away with it. That's the problem that must be addressed. Everything else - whether this behavior is aimed toward women or gay people etc. etc. - is secondary. Unfortunately, most people can't realize that because identity politics is more important to them than the truth.
5
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
Couldn't agree more @Betaboy. You call it animal behavior and I agree, that's a good description of it, if you include 'tribalism' in animal behavior. My outdoor poultry are amazing examples of true diveristy (chickens, regular ducks, muscovey ducks and two different species of geese. They could range farther from the house than they do, I have five acres, but they seem to know that they have plenty of room and so they are relaxed pooping on the back porch, a variety of species all together. However, they are tribal too. The three white ducks -- an exclusive group. The two Chinese geese are always together at the edge of the others. The roosters each have a few hens to themselves. If these pinbrains can get along (minor breeding scuffles aside) what in the hell us up with us. Complexity can't be the only excuse.
(have to get one good critter entry in here at least weekly)
The boundaries of the tribe is another way to talk about the Christians, LGBTQ, Texans, etc. We get nasty with the fear deep in the animal nature because back then, coming up on a foreign tribe was almost always bad news. That was one of the first things we probably did collectively, was draw the lines between Us and Them. And for darn good reason . . . but now? This is one of the top 5 things that could wipe us out, this animal behavior that was born out of necessity, now a liability. Tribalism isn't all bad, either. It's believing the fear behind it, perhaps, rather than the facts in front of you.
@Victorious said:
Maybe if awareness is raised at this type of mass lynching people will recognize the situation and back off?
That's really my goal in posting this in a community (here) that doesn't run in those same circles as those effected by this incident: to raise awareness that this is happening, every day, to all sorts of people.
Good call! Relying on the common sense and good will of people is the best way to go.
I have spoken about this with some friends. But mostly it is so unfathomable that they have difficulty in grasping it and thus believing it. Also the tech jargon makes it more difficult.
I have the same problem trying to explain to locals here in the village that there has been a pretty bad smearing campaign against one of my friends by his ex.
The normal reaction is: It takes two to tango. In this case I guess it would be ok to respond "It takes 2 million to tango" just to point out how unfair it is.
1
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
When you (the generic you) are listening to negative stories about someone else, there is a personal responsibility in what you 'do' with that information. How you relate to it, specifically.
If you relate to it as yet another example of how imperfect we all are, yourself included, 'you' come away including yourself in being capable of screwing up royally, having all the same tendencies yourself. I think this approach sets us up for compassion rather than progrom.
What's the 'joy' in passing on such information, when you genuinely see yourself in all the gory details? Probably not much.
It's the exact opposite of the knee-jerk reaction of "well, I would never be that stupid/wrong/inappropriate! I stand apart from this, pure from similar shortcomings. Thus, I pass this information along as an example of my exclusion from such imperfection, with the intent of colluding with YOUR similarly cherished notions of yourself."
1
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited October 2014
Sorry if I'm reviving a thread sorta late, but I hadn't seen a particular incident mentioned that I wanted to bring up.
@Victorious said:
Maybe if awareness is raised at this type of mass lynching people will recognize the situation and back of? Or even critically question what is going on. Not much drama if only one dog barks.
It seems as of late that things are getting worse and worse for women online. Check out the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian. She is best known for her videos on women tropes in video games, which she posts on her youtube page called Feminist Frequency. Not only has she been harassed relentlessly online, had death threats sent to her house, her public information posted... but recently, she was booked to give a talk at Utah State University, where an anonymous troll posted on an online message board that if she was allowed to give her talk as planned, they would come onto campus with guns and perform a "Montreal Massacre style attack."
Obviously, the talk was canceled... but seriously... wtf? My hopes are that this individual's actions are so heinous, people finally start paying attention to this escalating trend and something can be done about it. I don't know what... but I hope there is something. Setting demands, threatening violence... this is terrorism.
What do you mean, "obviously, the talk was canceled"? Someone should have contacted police and possibly FBI. I don't think the talk should have been canceled. Are we throwing freedom of speech out the window, and giving in to thugs? (Or pretend thugs. We have no idea if they were ready to make good on their threat.) Since when can't someone critique games, videos, or other media?
Where is the hue and cry about the threat to freedom of speech?
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
@Dakini I hear what you're saying, but it was her choice to cancel the talk. The reason is actually even more depressing. From the article:
"I eventually got on the phone with the police at Utah State University and they informed me that they would not allow for backpacks and have additional security there. When I asked them about Utah's concealed weapon laws, they informed me that they couldn't do any kind of screening for weapons, which was a little mind-boggling to me, because the threat received was very reminiscent of sort of copycat killers of these misogynist massacres that had been done previously. I was like, 'Can you at least have metal detectors or do pat-downs?' And they refused to do that. So I declined and canceled the event because I felt like that was too high of a risk to put me and the students in."
I guess there's no way to trace an email, because people can use portable devices and email from public wifi locations.
So are we all going to be held hostage to potentially fake internet threats? All you have to do to get a speaker cancelled that you don't like is email the event organizers a threat of violence.
Ohkay, good to know. :hrm: .
:rant: .
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
There IS a way to trace emails.
Just as when you make an online search for something random, you get pop-up adverts on subsequent websites you visit (and on gmail!) because techno-track is kept of your activity online, there most certainly ARE ways to trace emails.
I KNOW it can be done, because a neighbour of my mother's is a CI Superintendent, and he KNOWS it can be done.... He's done it.
All legitimately and in the line of duty, I would hastily add....
I KNOW it can be done, because a neighbour of my mother's is a CI Superintendent, and he KNOWS it can be done.... He's done it.
Sure, but they have to get this information from the ISP, and there are ways to set up e-mail accounts which makes them very difficult to trace and identify.
@federica said:
There IS a way to trace emails.
Just as when you make an online search for something random, you get pop-up adverts on subsequent websites you visit (and on gmail!) because techno-track is kept of your activity online, there most certainly ARE ways to trace emails.
I KNOW it can be done, because a neighbour of my mother's is a CI Superintendent, and he KNOWS it can be done.... He's done it.
All legitimately and in the line of duty, I would hastily add....
Women who have gone to police to complain about obscene emails (photos) have been told they can't be traced. Police used to trace phone harassment of this kind, but apparently with emails, they've given up.
It is probably not that they cannot be traced rather than that the crime has to be of some standing to extract the information from the ISP:s.
And maybe obscene emails do not cut it. Unfortunately.
Earlier when the net was young in some cases anybodys private ip could be traced.
I had someone who "borrowed" my computer for I do not know what. I could trace the Ip pretty easily back to its source and even found an email in the states.
I kindly asked the person to stop and E did. At least I didnt notice anything after that.
/Victor
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
edited October 2014
@Dakini said:
I guess there's no way to trace an email, because people can use portable devices and email from public wifi locations.
So are we all going to be held hostage to potentially fake internet threats? All you have to do to get a speaker cancelled that you don't like is email the event organizers a threat of violence.
Ohkay, good to know. :hrm: .
:rant: .
No kidding . My first thought was like yours, why did they cave in like that? Then reading her reasoning, of course I agree.
There's something 'different' about the internet, where crimes that would be prosecuted in other infrastructures are ignored or even poo poo'd. It's like what happens on the internet isn't really 'real'. It's just words on a page as far as influencing those who USUALLY rise to the occasion (like police), while the rest of us take extreme preventative measures. The result is terrorism (in many instances) we have to tolerate.
Pair that up with the proposals to radically decrease internet freedoms and privacy, and all the protests against that. We can't find our asses with both hands and a flashlight. If there WERE more 'control' and less freedom on the internet, would these kinds of terrorists be rendered powerless? Don't ask me . . .
@Linc said:
Related: 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman
Has anyone noticed a pattern in that video? It looks like she chose to walk through some somewhat rough neighborhoods. I don't see her walking through the Upper East Side, or other higher-end areas. This video was posted on another forum, where someone immediately commented that the issue was "cultural". I'd like to know a lot more about that. But I suspect there's truth to it. If she'd walked through Beverly Hills or even Berkeley, CA, or most parts of Seattle, no one would have noticed her.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2014
I think the point is that she should be able to walk as freely there as she could in Beverly Hills, Berkeley or any other 'civilised' place you'd care to mention...
@federica said:
I think the point is that she should be able to walk as freely there as she could in Beverly Hills, Berkeley or any other 'civilised' place you'd care to mention...
Of course. I'm just curious about the "cultural" aspect of it. What is the mindset there?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well, as the distinction was made on another forum, I suggest you ask them...
@federica said:
I think the point is that she should be able to walk as freely there as she could in Beverly Hills, Berkeley or any other 'civilised' place you'd care to mention...
While we are dreaming, I'd like to be able to walk anywhere in Vancouver or Victoria without having to deal with beggars and addicts and I'd like to wear a tee shirt and flip flops all year round. I'm tired of carrying an umbrella.
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@robot said:
While we are dreaming, I'd like to be able to walk anywhere in Vancouver or Victoria without having to deal with beggars and addicts and I'd like to wear a tee shirt and flip flops all year round. I'm tired of carrying an umbrella. @robot said:
This is part of an interesting situation playing out in Canada right now.
Start a new thread - you're completely off-topic.
In case you haven't actually read the thread, it was started specifically by Lincoln to highlight the atrocious levels of misogynistic attitudes prevalent in the techno-world society, and the constant prejudicial attitudes women have to face in general.
@federica said:
I suggest you begin a new thread.... .
Off topic on the first point for sure but I was responding to your off topic post.
The second point might closer to the topic as it concerns women being abused and fearful to speak up on account of potential harassment. Also being that the main character is a well known radio personality, there is a techno angle to the story as well. In any case anyone who is interested can look Jian Ghomeshi up on their own.
@federica said:
Well, as the distinction was made on another forum, I suggest you ask them...
I'm coming to the conclusion it's about men who are unemployed and marginalized by society. And in the US those tend to be certain ethnic groups. So it's not exactly cultural, it's more about class and employment status. It's about feeling powerless, so the men do what little they can to assert their power, by picking on those weaker than they, meaning women. I think that's part of it. Some of it may just be out of boredom, something to do for sport while loitering around all day. I've run into some of that myself.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited October 2014
And it's been happening for millennia, and men (and some women) will always fathom a reason or an excuse for it, but systematically, for countless thousands of years, one half of the population (the Male gender) has waged a "war" on the other half, purely and simply because they have breasts and a vagina.
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
When you desperately need something, it is easy to resent. Males have always been just a tad less 'important', being rather expendable in many species. If they want to fulfill their biological purpose, they must mate females. Some males of the species (ours for instance) don't wait for permission to mate, as is true in other species. Why take by force something you don't need?
It's also embedded in a culture that is constantly talking about 'bitches and hos' such as in rap music and probably some other places.
0
Toraldris -`-,-{@ Zen Nud... Buddhist @}-,-`- East Coast, USAVeteran
One of the reasons I can't stand rap music right there. Another is dropping the N word all the time... we've been conditioned to be averse to that word, and it's flying all over the damn place.
Sexism and misogyny are terrible things. I don't care about culture or what have you—you shouldn't have to expect/put up with discrimination and violence anywhere you go, period. If it's present and we're aware of its existence, we need to fight it.
For me, part of growing up, maturing, or whatever you want to call it, is becoming more aware of, and sensitive to, these kinds of realities, seeing that things like patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc. exist and permeate our culture and society in negative and harmful ways, realizing that even the most seemingly innocuous things we do or say can and do carry the seeds of patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc. without us ever knowing it because it's hard to see the big picture (i.e., history; the multitude of psychology and cultural mechanisms that are at play; the types of discrimination and violence that still exist, even if only in verbal form; etc.).
Seeing something like this, it's easy to say a man, "Well, that's not me. I'd never do that." But that doesn't mean we don't do or say things that, unconsciously on our part, help to propagate these kinds of attitudes. And even when we're aware of it, it can be hard to admit. I know that I certainly don't like admitting to myself that I've done and said things that were less than enlightened, that I've said racist and sexist shit even though I didn't see it that way at the time.
And even if we don't think and act in this way, do we consistently challenge it when we come into contact with others who do? Sometimes, perhaps. But maybe sometimes we're afraid to confront the person. Maybe we think we're too busy or think it's none of our business. Maybe sometimes we think it's funny. Whatever the case, by not challenging it when we know it for what it is, we give it space to grow. Our non-action helps to preserve an environment that allows this to continue to happen. Seeing this, the most important message I get is, "Please help me to create an environment that makes it unacceptable because I can't do it alone."
Why is it so important? One of the main reasons is how easily obscured the existence of patriarchy is. It's hidden in plain sight, as is its considerable influence, despite the fact that evidence of it is literally everywhere (even our language is permeated by it). Most people don't seem to understand patriarchy, how it works, where it comes from, and why it's worth struggling against. In Western society and culture, for example, patriarchy can be traced back to the earliest parts of recorded history; and even today, it pervades huge swaths of our culture, religion, politics, and economic relations.
The role of women in public life in ancient Greece and Rome, from where Western society can arguably trace its roots, was practically nonexistent. Their primary roles were as child-bearers and homebodies. Women (at least aristocratic women, i.e., non-slaves and prostitutes) in Greece were hardly even seen in public, and then usually only when accompanying a man. Being single wasn't acceptable. Education was primarily something men received. Gender roles were strictly defined. Men dominated all spheres of life. In Rome, things were slightly better and less restrictive for women, but not by much.
(As a side note, one of the more radical and impressive aspects of Plato's Republic was his argument that women should share in the education and tasks of their male counterparts. This includes arguing for female guardians (soldiers) and rulers at a time when women were 'kept at home' and mostly restricted from public life, which really surprised me.)
Another point of entry for patriarchy in Western society was the male hierarchy of Christianity. While some aspects can be seen as radical and egalitarian in nature, there are aspects that, when Christianity was adopted by the Roman world, reinforced patriarchy and women's submissive role in society. A few examples are: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord" (Eph 5:22); "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Cor 14:34); and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Tim 2:12).
Fast forward through centuries of male-dominated society and you have the birth of America, in which initially only white, male property owners could vote, with women only winning the right vote in 1920, 50 years after blacks and 144 years after the country's founding. And if you think winning the right to vote was the end of gender discrimination, you're sorely mistaken. Women are still battling against rigid gender roles, prejudices, and hierarchies that we've been conditioned over time to subconsciously (and even consciously) adopt and maintain.
These material and ideological pressures, albeit weakened, continue to exert their influence on our society and its structure, informing our perceptions of the world and our conceptions of gender norms. Women are still widely seen as and/or expected to be child-bearers and homebodies, providing the free/uncompensated labour of literally reproducing the labour force and supporting the reproduction of labour power via nurturing husbands and children emotionally and materially (e.g., cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.). They're still expected to provide a certain kind of emotional labour, even in the workforce. They still make up the majority of 'nurturing' professions like nursing and teaching. They still tend to make less than their male counterparts (roughly $.80 to the dollar according to one study. They're often seen and portrayed as 'bitchy,' 'cold,' etc. if they're assertive and not nurturing/emotionally receptive and giving. The list goes on.
But this doesn't just affect women, it affects all of us. Due to the gender roles imposed upon men and women within our society, neither are free to fully be and express themselves (to say nothing of those who fall outside of this historically accepted gender binary). Men, for example, aren't given as much space as women to be 'caring,' 'nurturing,' etc., it not being 'manly' to show too much affection or emotion. And an argument can be made that the prevalence of male privilege embedded in our predominately patriarchal society and the negative aspects of socially-constructed, male gender norms (what some call 'toxic masculinity') are at least partially responsible for the prevalence of male violence, particularly gun violence.
In addition, a recent study published in the journal Psychological Science found that "both men and women see images of sexy women's bodies as objects, while they see sexy-looking men as people," which I think demonstrates that such a gender bias exists in the perception of both men and women; and the study's conclusion further reinforces my belief that sexism and the objectification of women is a broader symptom of a society that's practiced patriarchy for centuries, as well as corroborating evidence that patriarchal ideology has become so ingrained into our collective psyche that even women are conditioned to objectify women in the same way as men.
Feminism isn't about declaring men to be wholly bad or inferior, nor women to be wholly good or superior. It's about confronting the reality that patriarchy exists and permeates our culture and society and challenging that reality in order to create a more free and egalitarian world.
10
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
edited November 2014
Because I'm mostly a rare ghost on NB these days, I keep saying I'm not going to revive old posts... But I can't hold back commenting on how amazing that post by @Jason is.
I do want to comment though, that like Jason mentions becoming aware of inherent sexism... the same thing happened to me, and I expect, most women who identify as feminists. It really is so ingrained in our society that even women often do not realize it.
My mother lent me a copy of "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French when I was in high school and it absolutely changed my life. It takes place in the 50s, when sexism was a little more blatant, but I was shocked at how much simply hadn't changed, nearly half a century later. I think many men and women have this idea that sexism is a thing of the past and no longer exists because we have achieved most governmental rights (aside from that equal pay act cough), but sexism and misogyny is not gone... it's merely changed it's form. Where the more obvious attacks on women are now publicly stigmatized, there is still a sustaining tone or almost subliminal belief that women are inferior that often comes out in media. (On a side note, I think this could apply to racism in many ways, as well.) Objectification is maybe the most obvious expression of these beliefs that is so easily overlooked, but once you become aware of it... hard to miss.
I also really like what Jason had to say about how gender stereotyping also affects men. I think this is a really important point that is often overlooked. I've known enough men to know that they aren't really the emotionally-void automatons that most of the manly propaganda seems to try to imply. A society in which all members are free to express themselves in any way they feel would be better for everyone.
@zombiegirl Could you give some examples of how beliefs that women are inferior come out in the media? Or are you talking mainly about advertising? What about in film or news programs?
Have you noticed how public television always places women and men of color in authoritative positions? They've had several Black female news anchors over the last 20 or 30 years, including one anchoring their nightly business report program. PBS makes a deliberate effort to combat images in corporate media that convey the idea that leadership is mainly White and male.
Comments
Thanks. I love the first comment : "This page has some issues. "
.
It's not the only one!
Will try to read with an appropriate modicum of perspicacity but I don't know how far I will get...
>
Not quite-- heuristics are recognizable patterns, and virus scanners that use heuristics scan for and intercept known bad behaviors which they are programmed to recognize.
Thus, trolls can be recognized by what they exhibit behavior-wise, and mods can react to the behavior patterns. I am just stating this as an example. So far, programs for computers only learn in very limited ways, discriminating according to programmed rule sets.
Viruses and potentially unwanted programs are two different things. Just saying....
I speak as an adult and an ex-tech for 30 plus years, not as a mod.
Being kind to trolls is an advanced strategy, beyond non feeding. Most of us are not ready for dealing with the mire of hell realms . . .
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=477155#477155
Most people are drawn in and exploited by the troll mentality . . . In other words, people are kind, this is trolled and ridiculed and they get angry/upset etc. Troll wins. This is why trolling is a 'fun' activity for the emotionally inadequate. Ignoring a troll (how they hate that) means also not reading their mire. They of course know when you have reacted by clearly being effected . . . Ignoring means not reading their posts. It is a form of 'Noble Silence' that has many levels of adoption.
You have to be ruthlessly kind to play with Trolls. Tough love is tough. Emotional detachment is a skill that most people have not developed and trolls know this. Bless them.
Did I mention laughter?
Whilst they love laughing at others emotional consternation, laughing, dancing with them . . . not their idea of fun.
Hope this is useful and pertinent.
One thing I learnt from my early school years is that bullys do not stop until made to stop. In those days most schools here did not have any awareness of bullying and how to handle it.
And s.c. doxing and swatting are only other names for stuff that has been going on always in social life.
But in school I could change my situation by acting/confronting people.
Gossip is always difficult to meet...
... but all of this on this massive scale is totally unbelievable.
Feels like a organisation like Friends + raised awareness would be really welcome on the net.
I agree @Victorious. But what exactly is it that stops them? I worked with a charge nurse that would yell at you angrily in front of everyone. When she did it to me (I had made a mistake) I went to her a day later, privately, and told her please speak to me privately next time, and apologized again for the mistake. She acted shocked she came across that way (ha), but from then on, she seemed to respect me a lot more.
With the online psycho that went after me and the others, she just disappeared several weeks after her victim won the slander/libel suit against her. No warning, no dramatic exit. Nothing apparent to any of us happened. She's not dead, I know that. Ignoring her did nothing! ANY attention, real or imagined by her, made her worse.
If a person can directly connect with the bully, I've had that work. Trouble is, most in my experience couldn't be connected with. Stopping them is usually not quiet, being unlikely to accept not having the last word. It's a tough one. There are a lot of damaged people knocking around, and to some degree, all of us have the tendency for cruelty when cornered (real or imagined). I have been really hard on people even if I kept most of it to myself. They trigger instant aversion of some sort, and anger comes to me easily. It is ugly and really persistent! It's no wonder that those who act out the most come across as crazy. Living in whatever internal environment that causes them to bully and troll must be a hell realm.
Stopping them is obviously very, very difficult. The evidence of that is everywhere you look. As a society or a race we tolerate and encourage it but sure do hate it when it gets personal.
Maybe if awareness is raised at this type of mass lynching people will recognize the situation and back of? Or even critically question what is going on. Not much drama if only one dog barks.
That is how Friends work? By informing and getting people to make a difference?
Also I think that if those that can prevent this kind of behavior like twitter and facebook etc are not only made aware of the problem but also forced to act to stop it?
Just blurting out ideas and trying to avoid all that lead to central government controlled mass surveillance and storage of data.
Related article here: https://news.vice.com/article/the-danger-of-letting-monsters-pass-as-internet-trolls
You have to 'know their name'. This is the strategy used by the biblical wizard king Solomon. He 'called up' each negative attribute (in modern parlance) or demon in old-speak.
You have to start with little negativities.
Women being victimised, often by themselves, the weak being picked on, the outsider being ostracised are all part of our socialization/animal behaviour.
Monkey mind, troll mind, cruelty, anger, door mat victimisation, bullying etc. we may be familiar with. We may have some of these tendencies as @Hamsaka points out. Exploring our dark side AND extreme fluffy new age empathy may be a dark and unrealistic side, is not easy.
Fortunately the dark side is empty of real being. It is a mask. :thumbsup: .
Good article! In a nutshell, call a spade a spade, a la Rumplestiltskin (right @lobster ?)
Except it's not that easy. People's minds are not all that clear about identifying monsters versus annoyances. Like Seriouspony said a few times in her blog post, good people are recruited by the 'monster' by their goodness, and participate wholeheartedly in destruction. The human animal behavior is easily exploited, we seem to be always ready to shake our fists or rattle our swords. And it doesn't take 'much' to provide the justification. It's not a place we search deeply within ourselves (exploring our 'dark side'), it's even discouraged or pathologized. It's not like we are brimming with 'good examples' here
. An uphill fight, for sure.
But wait . . . am I 'participating' in this problem (rather than the solution) by thinking about it like this? As an uphill fight? Hmmmm . . ..
People suffer in different ways. People are wounded in different ways. There will be causes why they are mysoginistic, racists or 'monsters'. Compassion only for approved people? Who is going to have compassion for the hell realms and he'll raisers?
Extending our skill set (not prematurely) is hard. We start by being and associating with our better selves.
Do you think 'being wounded in different ways' is an adequate explanation for why some people react to their wounds by hating, and others by becoming more vulnerable than ever? Children grow up in abusive homes, and only a portion come out perpetuating abuse. The same wounding has different results.
It makes me wonder about 'my amygdala is bigger than yours' (amygdala is thought to be the 'flight, fight or freeze' center of the brain). fMRI's show different distribution of brain activities between normal folks and psychopaths. "Wounding" a psychopath is as simple as telling them 'no'. Really. It is as if you have cornered them and inserted the pitchfork part way. What causes wounds like that? Is it even a wound? Or just a way of being that doesn't look all that different from the behavior of the lions who go round killing another's offspring so he can bring the lioness into heat for his own siring? Major eek, I need to go watch cartoons now :buck: happy ones.
@Hamsaka hell realms - not a fun area to explore. Sufficient to say there are levels of haters just as their are layers of compassion. My advice is to move towards the good, towards compassion.
Humans are animals. This is something we must realize. Animal behavior is very common among us, especially when we realize we can get away with it. That's the problem that must be addressed. Everything else - whether this behavior is aimed toward women or gay people etc. etc. - is secondary. Unfortunately, most people can't realize that because identity politics is more important to them than the truth.
Couldn't agree more @Betaboy. You call it animal behavior and I agree, that's a good description of it, if you include 'tribalism' in animal behavior. My outdoor poultry are amazing examples of true diveristy (chickens, regular ducks, muscovey ducks and two different species of geese. They could range farther from the house than they do, I have five acres, but they seem to know that they have plenty of room and so they are relaxed pooping on the back porch, a variety of species all together. However, they are tribal too. The three white ducks -- an exclusive group. The two Chinese geese are always together at the edge of the others. The roosters each have a few hens to themselves. If these pinbrains can get along (minor breeding scuffles aside) what in the hell us up with us. Complexity can't be the only excuse.
(have to get one good critter entry in here at least weekly)
The boundaries of the tribe is another way to talk about the Christians, LGBTQ, Texans, etc. We get nasty with the fear deep in the animal nature because back then, coming up on a foreign tribe was almost always bad news. That was one of the first things we probably did collectively, was draw the lines between Us and Them. And for darn good reason . . . but now? This is one of the top 5 things that could wipe us out, this animal behavior that was born out of necessity, now a liability. Tribalism isn't all bad, either. It's believing the fear behind it, perhaps, rather than the facts in front of you.
Mandalas. Tribalism.
That's really my goal in posting this in a community (here) that doesn't run in those same circles as those effected by this incident: to raise awareness that this is happening, every day, to all sorts of people.
Good call! Relying on the common sense and good will of people is the best way to go.
I have spoken about this with some friends. But mostly it is so unfathomable that they have difficulty in grasping it and thus believing it. Also the tech jargon makes it more difficult.
I have the same problem trying to explain to locals here in the village that there has been a pretty bad smearing campaign against one of my friends by his ex.
The normal reaction is: It takes two to tango. In this case I guess it would be ok to respond "It takes 2 million to tango" just to point out how unfair it is.
When you (the generic you) are listening to negative stories about someone else, there is a personal responsibility in what you 'do' with that information. How you relate to it, specifically.
If you relate to it as yet another example of how imperfect we all are, yourself included, 'you' come away including yourself in being capable of screwing up royally, having all the same tendencies yourself. I think this approach sets us up for compassion rather than progrom.
What's the 'joy' in passing on such information, when you genuinely see yourself in all the gory details? Probably not much.
It's the exact opposite of the knee-jerk reaction of "well, I would never be that stupid/wrong/inappropriate! I stand apart from this, pure from similar shortcomings. Thus, I pass this information along as an example of my exclusion from such imperfection, with the intent of colluding with YOUR similarly cherished notions of yourself."
Sorry if I'm reviving a thread sorta late, but I hadn't seen a particular incident mentioned that I wanted to bring up.
It seems as of late that things are getting worse and worse for women online. Check out the treatment of Anita Sarkeesian. She is best known for her videos on women tropes in video games, which she posts on her youtube page called Feminist Frequency. Not only has she been harassed relentlessly online, had death threats sent to her house, her public information posted... but recently, she was booked to give a talk at Utah State University, where an anonymous troll posted on an online message board that if she was allowed to give her talk as planned, they would come onto campus with guns and perform a "Montreal Massacre style attack."
Obviously, the talk was canceled... but seriously... wtf? My hopes are that this individual's actions are so heinous, people finally start paying attention to this escalating trend and something can be done about it. I don't know what... but I hope there is something. Setting demands, threatening violence... this is terrorism.
An article about the threat and Anita's canceled talk.
What do you mean, "obviously, the talk was canceled"? Someone should have contacted police and possibly FBI. I don't think the talk should have been canceled. Are we throwing freedom of speech out the window, and giving in to thugs? (Or pretend thugs. We have no idea if they were ready to make good on their threat.) Since when can't someone critique games, videos, or other media?
Where is the hue and cry about the threat to freedom of speech?
@Dakini I hear what you're saying, but it was her choice to cancel the talk. The reason is actually even more depressing. From the article:
I guess there's no way to trace an email, because people can use portable devices and email from public wifi locations.
So are we all going to be held hostage to potentially fake internet threats? All you have to do to get a speaker cancelled that you don't like is email the event organizers a threat of violence.
Ohkay, good to know. :hrm: .
:rant: .
There IS a way to trace emails.
Just as when you make an online search for something random, you get pop-up adverts on subsequent websites you visit (and on gmail!) because techno-track is kept of your activity online, there most certainly ARE ways to trace emails.
I KNOW it can be done, because a neighbour of my mother's is a CI Superintendent, and he KNOWS it can be done.... He's done it.
All legitimately and in the line of duty, I would hastily add....
...there most certainly ARE ways to trace emails.
Sure, but they have to get this information from the ISP, and there are ways to set up e-mail accounts which makes them very difficult to trace and identify.
Women who have gone to police to complain about obscene emails (photos) have been told they can't be traced. Police used to trace phone harassment of this kind, but apparently with emails, they've given up.
It is probably not that they cannot be traced rather than that the crime has to be of some standing to extract the information from the ISP:s.
And maybe obscene emails do not cut it. Unfortunately.
Earlier when the net was young in some cases anybodys private ip could be traced.
I had someone who "borrowed" my computer for I do not know what. I could trace the Ip pretty easily back to its source and even found an email in the states.
I kindly asked the person to stop and E did. At least I didnt notice anything after that.
/Victor
No kidding
. My first thought was like yours, why did they cave in like that? Then reading her reasoning, of course I agree.
There's something 'different' about the internet, where crimes that would be prosecuted in other infrastructures are ignored or even poo poo'd. It's like what happens on the internet isn't really 'real'. It's just words on a page as far as influencing those who USUALLY rise to the occasion (like police), while the rest of us take extreme preventative measures. The result is terrorism (in many instances) we have to tolerate.
Pair that up with the proposals to radically decrease internet freedoms and privacy, and all the protests against that. We can't find our asses with both hands and a flashlight. If there WERE more 'control' and less freedom on the internet, would these kinds of terrorists be rendered powerless? Don't ask me . . .
Related: 10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman
Has anyone noticed a pattern in that video? It looks like she chose to walk through some somewhat rough neighborhoods. I don't see her walking through the Upper East Side, or other higher-end areas. This video was posted on another forum, where someone immediately commented that the issue was "cultural". I'd like to know a lot more about that. But I suspect there's truth to it. If she'd walked through Beverly Hills or even Berkeley, CA, or most parts of Seattle, no one would have noticed her.
I think the point is that she should be able to walk as freely there as she could in Beverly Hills, Berkeley or any other 'civilised' place you'd care to mention...
Of course. I'm just curious about the "cultural" aspect of it. What is the mindset there?
Well, as the distinction was made on another forum, I suggest you ask them...
Here's an article/commentary on the case featured in the OP, from the NY Times last weekend. The issue has become known as "Gamergate".
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/the-disheartening-gamergate-campaign.html?_r=0
While we are dreaming, I'd like to be able to walk anywhere in Vancouver or Victoria without having to deal with beggars and addicts and I'd like to wear a tee shirt and flip flops all year round. I'm tired of carrying an umbrella.
Harassment is not acceptable and something can be done.
http://www.ihollaback.org/resources/responding-to-harassers/
This thread is great! Really enjoying the commentary.
Anita Sarkeesian strikes a defiant yet hopeful note on women in gaming tech, in today's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html?_r=0
This is part of an interesting situation playing out in Canada right now.
http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/28/jian-ghomseshi-lawsuit-cbc/
>
Start a new thread - you're completely off-topic.
In case you haven't actually read the thread, it was started specifically by Lincoln to highlight the atrocious levels of misogynistic attitudes prevalent in the techno-world society, and the constant prejudicial attitudes women have to face in general.
I suggest you begin a new thread....
.
Off topic on the first point for sure but I was responding to your off topic post.
The second point might closer to the topic as it concerns women being abused and fearful to speak up on account of potential harassment. Also being that the main character is a well known radio personality, there is a techno angle to the story as well. In any case anyone who is interested can look Jian Ghomeshi up on their own.
I'm coming to the conclusion it's about men who are unemployed and marginalized by society. And in the US those tend to be certain ethnic groups. So it's not exactly cultural, it's more about class and employment status. It's about feeling powerless, so the men do what little they can to assert their power, by picking on those weaker than they, meaning women. I think that's part of it. Some of it may just be out of boredom, something to do for sport while loitering around all day. I've run into some of that myself.
And it's been happening for millennia, and men (and some women) will always fathom a reason or an excuse for it, but systematically, for countless thousands of years, one half of the population (the Male gender) has waged a "war" on the other half, purely and simply because they have breasts and a vagina.
Can't think of any other reasons....
Misogyny - the World's oldest prejudice.
When you desperately need something, it is easy to resent. Males have always been just a tad less 'important', being rather expendable in many species. If they want to fulfill their biological purpose, they must mate females. Some males of the species (ours for instance) don't wait for permission to mate, as is true in other species. Why take by force something you don't need?
It's also embedded in a culture that is constantly talking about 'bitches and hos' such as in rap music and probably some other places.
One of the reasons I can't stand rap music right there. Another is dropping the N word all the time... we've been conditioned to be averse to that word, and it's flying all over the damn place.
Sexism and misogyny are terrible things. I don't care about culture or what have you—you shouldn't have to expect/put up with discrimination and violence anywhere you go, period. If it's present and we're aware of its existence, we need to fight it.
For me, part of growing up, maturing, or whatever you want to call it, is becoming more aware of, and sensitive to, these kinds of realities, seeing that things like patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc. exist and permeate our culture and society in negative and harmful ways, realizing that even the most seemingly innocuous things we do or say can and do carry the seeds of patriarchy, racism, sexism, etc. without us ever knowing it because it's hard to see the big picture (i.e., history; the multitude of psychology and cultural mechanisms that are at play; the types of discrimination and violence that still exist, even if only in verbal form; etc.).
Seeing something like this, it's easy to say a man, "Well, that's not me. I'd never do that." But that doesn't mean we don't do or say things that, unconsciously on our part, help to propagate these kinds of attitudes. And even when we're aware of it, it can be hard to admit. I know that I certainly don't like admitting to myself that I've done and said things that were less than enlightened, that I've said racist and sexist shit even though I didn't see it that way at the time.
And even if we don't think and act in this way, do we consistently challenge it when we come into contact with others who do? Sometimes, perhaps. But maybe sometimes we're afraid to confront the person. Maybe we think we're too busy or think it's none of our business. Maybe sometimes we think it's funny. Whatever the case, by not challenging it when we know it for what it is, we give it space to grow. Our non-action helps to preserve an environment that allows this to continue to happen. Seeing this, the most important message I get is, "Please help me to create an environment that makes it unacceptable because I can't do it alone."
Why is it so important? One of the main reasons is how easily obscured the existence of patriarchy is. It's hidden in plain sight, as is its considerable influence, despite the fact that evidence of it is literally everywhere (even our language is permeated by it). Most people don't seem to understand patriarchy, how it works, where it comes from, and why it's worth struggling against. In Western society and culture, for example, patriarchy can be traced back to the earliest parts of recorded history; and even today, it pervades huge swaths of our culture, religion, politics, and economic relations.
The role of women in public life in ancient Greece and Rome, from where Western society can arguably trace its roots, was practically nonexistent. Their primary roles were as child-bearers and homebodies. Women (at least aristocratic women, i.e., non-slaves and prostitutes) in Greece were hardly even seen in public, and then usually only when accompanying a man. Being single wasn't acceptable. Education was primarily something men received. Gender roles were strictly defined. Men dominated all spheres of life. In Rome, things were slightly better and less restrictive for women, but not by much.
(As a side note, one of the more radical and impressive aspects of Plato's Republic was his argument that women should share in the education and tasks of their male counterparts. This includes arguing for female guardians (soldiers) and rulers at a time when women were 'kept at home' and mostly restricted from public life, which really surprised me.)
Another point of entry for patriarchy in Western society was the male hierarchy of Christianity. While some aspects can be seen as radical and egalitarian in nature, there are aspects that, when Christianity was adopted by the Roman world, reinforced patriarchy and women's submissive role in society. A few examples are: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord" (Eph 5:22); "Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says" (1 Cor 14:34); and "I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet" (1 Tim 2:12).
Fast forward through centuries of male-dominated society and you have the birth of America, in which initially only white, male property owners could vote, with women only winning the right vote in 1920, 50 years after blacks and 144 years after the country's founding. And if you think winning the right to vote was the end of gender discrimination, you're sorely mistaken. Women are still battling against rigid gender roles, prejudices, and hierarchies that we've been conditioned over time to subconsciously (and even consciously) adopt and maintain.
These material and ideological pressures, albeit weakened, continue to exert their influence on our society and its structure, informing our perceptions of the world and our conceptions of gender norms. Women are still widely seen as and/or expected to be child-bearers and homebodies, providing the free/uncompensated labour of literally reproducing the labour force and supporting the reproduction of labour power via nurturing husbands and children emotionally and materially (e.g., cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.). They're still expected to provide a certain kind of emotional labour, even in the workforce. They still make up the majority of 'nurturing' professions like nursing and teaching. They still tend to make less than their male counterparts (roughly $.80 to the dollar according to one study. They're often seen and portrayed as 'bitchy,' 'cold,' etc. if they're assertive and not nurturing/emotionally receptive and giving. The list goes on.
But this doesn't just affect women, it affects all of us. Due to the gender roles imposed upon men and women within our society, neither are free to fully be and express themselves (to say nothing of those who fall outside of this historically accepted gender binary). Men, for example, aren't given as much space as women to be 'caring,' 'nurturing,' etc., it not being 'manly' to show too much affection or emotion. And an argument can be made that the prevalence of male privilege embedded in our predominately patriarchal society and the negative aspects of socially-constructed, male gender norms (what some call 'toxic masculinity') are at least partially responsible for the prevalence of male violence, particularly gun violence.
In addition, a recent study published in the journal Psychological Science found that "both men and women see images of sexy women's bodies as objects, while they see sexy-looking men as people," which I think demonstrates that such a gender bias exists in the perception of both men and women; and the study's conclusion further reinforces my belief that sexism and the objectification of women is a broader symptom of a society that's practiced patriarchy for centuries, as well as corroborating evidence that patriarchal ideology has become so ingrained into our collective psyche that even women are conditioned to objectify women in the same way as men.
Feminism isn't about declaring men to be wholly bad or inferior, nor women to be wholly good or superior. It's about confronting the reality that patriarchy exists and permeates our culture and society and challenging that reality in order to create a more free and egalitarian world.
Mega-awesome, @Jason.
Because I'm mostly a rare ghost on NB these days, I keep saying I'm not going to revive old posts... But I can't hold back commenting on how amazing that post by @Jason is.
I do want to comment though, that like Jason mentions becoming aware of inherent sexism... the same thing happened to me, and I expect, most women who identify as feminists. It really is so ingrained in our society that even women often do not realize it.
My mother lent me a copy of "The Women's Room" by Marilyn French when I was in high school and it absolutely changed my life. It takes place in the 50s, when sexism was a little more blatant, but I was shocked at how much simply hadn't changed, nearly half a century later. I think many men and women have this idea that sexism is a thing of the past and no longer exists because we have achieved most governmental rights (aside from that equal pay act cough), but sexism and misogyny is not gone... it's merely changed it's form. Where the more obvious attacks on women are now publicly stigmatized, there is still a sustaining tone or almost subliminal belief that women are inferior that often comes out in media. (On a side note, I think this could apply to racism in many ways, as well.) Objectification is maybe the most obvious expression of these beliefs that is so easily overlooked, but once you become aware of it... hard to miss.
The Sexy Lie: A great Ted X talk on objectification by Caroline Heldman (12min video)
I also really like what Jason had to say about how gender stereotyping also affects men. I think this is a really important point that is often overlooked. I've known enough men to know that they aren't really the emotionally-void automatons that most of the manly propaganda seems to try to imply. A society in which all members are free to express themselves in any way they feel would be better for everyone.
@zombiegirl Could you give some examples of how beliefs that women are inferior come out in the media? Or are you talking mainly about advertising? What about in film or news programs?
Have you noticed how public television always places women and men of color in authoritative positions? They've had several Black female news anchors over the last 20 or 30 years, including one anchoring their nightly business report program. PBS makes a deliberate effort to combat images in corporate media that convey the idea that leadership is mainly White and male.
No, I'm not being humorous. We need concrete examples if we're to discuss. I was wondering what she had in mind.
Of course, it might help if you knew that I haven't watched TV in 5 or 6 years... And even when I did watch TV, it was mostly PBS.