I am dismissive of the idea that men become the targets of similar harassment campaigns, yes. If there is a way for me to articulate more dismissiveness, let me know, I'll do that too.
The idea that men being accused of "mansplaining"† is meant to equate to organized harassment campaigns against women pretty much sums this whole issue up.
Thank you. If I had myself suggested people believed that, I'd be accused of caricaturing. But we'd both know: I wouldn't have been.
† (or "patronizing", a word that means literally the exact same thing and has somehow been used for centuries without mortally injuring our manly feels)
>The idea that men being accused of "mansplaining"† is meant to equate to organized harassment campaigns against women pretty much sums this whole issue up.
No and that isn't what I said. That was in reference to a certain demographic of people that do target men specifically because they are men and men are equivalent to being the devil, since their beliefs are borderline a religion to begin with I feel fine in making that equivalence.
>I am dismissive of the idea that men become the targets of similar harassment campaigns, yes.
Similar here is what is often called a "weasel word" -- to make the whole thing subjective and impossible to disprove (since nobody knows what would be "similar" enough to satisfy the un-disclosed similarity criteria -- in other words, sort like the "no true scotsman" fallacy).
If we omit that word, the truth is simply this: men who write or men who post online in general also can and often do become targets of harassment campaigns. Especially on the internet, where harassment comes as easy as writing a swearing/threatening/derogatory comment and mobs are quick to jump on mass attacks.
Their attackers may not call them "bitches" and "sluts" (so in that sense it's not "similar") but they do call them tons of other things, including things that they don't call women (e.g. "faggot").
Here are some examples grabbed from literally the first page of Google search:
Overall, men are somewhat more likely than women to experience at least one of the elements of online harassment, 44% vs. 37%. In terms of specific experiences, men are more likely than women to encounter name-calling, embarrassment, and physical threats.
One blogpost (civilly) critical of Sarkeesian and her supporters offers a fully sourced compilation of online comments wishing death, rape, mutilation and deadly diseases upon Jack Thompson, an activist critical of violent and sexual content in videogames—as well as death threats directed at male videogame developers who ran afoul of their fans.
Meanwhile, role-playing game designer James Desborough claims to have been viciously threatened for defending the use of sexual violence as a plot element in games.
And film blogger Alex Sandell (Juicy Cerebellum) has described receiving not only a deluge of hate mail but threatening phone calls—sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes made to his relatives—after writing negative reviews of the first two Lord of the Rings movies.
In the political sphere, several conservative male writers and activists have been targeted for rape and death threats, with their phone numbers publicly posted, after producing a documentary critical of the Occupy movement.
Right-wing bloggers involved in the bizarre war with leftist activist Brett Kimberlin that David Weigel recently chronicled in The Daily Beast have faced scary cyber-harassment from some of Kimberlin’s supporters, including graphic fantasies of violent revenge, lurid sexual slurs, and accusations of child pornography. (Particularly disturbing examples are documented in a blogpost by First Amendment advocate Ken White.)
On the other side, Charles Johnson, who runs the blog Little Green Footballs, relocated to a gated community because of threats he received after breaking with the right and embracing more liberal politics.
One male victim of cyberstalking, British expatriate novelist James Lasdun, told his story in the 2013 memoir, Give Me Everything You Have: On Being Stalked. Lasdun’s stalker, a former creative-writing student whose romantic overtures he had rejected, not only barraged him with abusive messages but emailed his colleagues accusing him of stealing her work, preying on female students, and even setting her up to be raped; she posted similar slanders on websites including Amazon.com and Wikipedia. But an experience like Lasdun’s gets no political sympathy; indeed, the review in The New Yorker chided him for failing to admit his “crush” on the woman and his role in leading her on.
[a] study, conducted by the British think tank Demos, was limited to a fairly small sample of British celebrities, journalists and politicians whose Twitter timelines were tracked over a two-week period, its findings are nonetheless interesting. On the whole, 2.5 percent of the tweets sent to the men but fewer than 1 percent of those sent to women were classified as abusive. Male politicians fared especially badly, receiving more than six times as much abuse as female politicians. The only category in which women got more Twitter abuse than men was journalism: abusive messages accounted for more than 5 percent of the tweets sent to the female journalists and TV presenters in the study and fewer than 2 percent of the ones sent to the male journalists.
One of the differences is that men get far more constructive attention than women. This helps offset the negatives. There is more payoff for men who put themselves out there.
Have you recently done any of the following on HN:
Engaged a woman in good faith discussion?
Upvoted her comments, submissions, or written work?
Addressed the substance of her points instead of nitpicking minor issues or focusing on her gender in some way?
Engaged with her in a manner that in some way enhanced her public reputation as a professional or otherwise enhanced her professionally?
These things happen routinely for men on HN. I think they are far less common for women.
I am not afraid to stick my neck out, but I am unusual for a woman in many ways, yet I am still finding it enormously frustrating. The degree to which expressing myself gets hatred, sexual harassment or dismissal vastly outweighs the degree to which anything I do gets taken in any way seriously. The sad thing is that I suspect my experiences are dramatically more positive than what is typical for a woman online.
> Have you recently done any of the following on HN:
How are we to know? People here are just usernames. If there are any substantial number of women here, then I've certainly had the same mix of positive and negative interactions with them as anyone else on this site (I'm green because someone changed the password to my account, and I didn't have an e-mail registered to it).
There are few enough people that explicitly mention their gender here, and I'd always assumed it wasn't an issue (within this community, at least). It's sad to hear that you're having trouble.
>Have you recently done any of the following on HN:
Probably. I engage commenters -- and because of the handles (which I don't even check before commenting) I seldom know whether they are men or women (or LGBT), and basically I don't even care whether they are X or Y sex or not, as long as they have something interesting to say, or say something that I disagree with and want to comment on.
I'm an equal opportunity "somebody is wrong on the internet" commenter.
>These things happen routinely for men on HN. I think they are far less common for women.
Maybe because woman are much fewer than men on HN? I engage with both men and women on somewhat equal frequency on other forums and media, e.g. Facebook.
It sounds like this is just sneer, not an argument.
It's tough in the real world (which is bigger than tech) for everybody.
Bullying and harassment on the internet is a fact for both women and men (as it is in real life for that matter. Male geeks, for example, hardly get much love in high school from the "football team" type guys, and same for geeky/unpopular females from the schools "a-list").
Women have the historical baggage of sexism and double standards to fight against, which has been closing down since the 60s.
Men who are not of the macho/alpha-male type (that is, most of us tech geeks) have the macho/violence/"bro"/anti-"faggot" etc crap to put up with, which doesn't get much attention, but is a real problem too.
It is possible (and I'd say, preferable) to acknowledge both, and their unique mechanics, without flying any flags for one or the other.
Again with the weasel word ("meaningful") and the "no true scotchman" thing...
Is it only meaningful when it gets physical?
Or are violence threats and death threats, internet mob justice, bullying and the like is not "meaningful harassment" if it happens to men?
And why would that be?
Is that because most attacks on men are mere jokes, or maybe most men are thick-skinned Rambos that just brush them off?
And, the corollary, is that because most attacks on women are real-world threatening, or most women are little delicate creatures that can't take a verbal/written attack?
I find it hard to agree with either idea.
Maybe there's some other possible intended meaning behind this "meaningful harassment" notion that I've missed?
I'm not interested in the noodling semantic argument. Don't bullshit me. You're not getting anywhere with it.
I stand by everything I've said on this thread. Anyone who suggests men in this industry deal with harassment of the same kind women do should be embarrassed. Will, inevitably, be embarrassed. I'll happily sign my own name to that.
"men become targets of similar harassment campaigns"
was the case.
Not
"men become targets of similar harassment campaigns because of their gender"
If you want to qualify away from beliefs towards physical properties then fine. Lets turn around and look at those harassed for their hair colour. How about skin colour? Origin? Things other members of their family have done?
> If you want to qualify away from beliefs towards physical properties then fine. Lets turn around and look at those harassed for their hair colour. How about skin colour? Origin? Things other members of their family have done?
I do not understand why this is not sufficient to preempt your comment.
In case it is not here are some example I have found alongside their google search terms:
No, and while I agree with neither Eich's politics nor what happened to him, I somehow find myself having no trouble holding those beliefs in my head at the same time as I do the ones I've expressed on this thread.
Not as often as women, but that wasn't the claim being made.