Web and threatened violence against women

Hi Digiteyes. I appreciate you bringing this to babble's attention.

I didn't know anything about Kathy Sierra before now, and I still don't know much except from the link, so I'm going to leave aside her position as a techie software-type for the moment.

Violence, including threatening violence, against women is very old and very ingrained. The venue of the anonymous internet has allowed some boys and men to express their hateful views, gain audience and to spread hatefulness in new and different ways.

As a woman in a male-dominated field, Kathy is receiving what many women receive when we step out of the realm that such men deem appropriate for us: All the hate and vitriol they can spew, and maybe more, since those who post do so from the safety of their computer monitors.

I'm not in the blogging world, except as a lurker, and an occasional linker, so if there's stuff about the etiquette of blogging then I'm not getting it, except for trying to understand new and self-selected communities that are created, perhaps with people you've never met in person, but if you share your words, and hear the words of others, begin to get a sense of that person and feel a connection, not unlike posters on babble and other discussion forums.

Of course the violence expressed is reprehensible and vile.

Unfortunately, I think the men who type this stuff, and the men who do it, are two different groups of men. Which only means there's more of them out there than we perhaps thought.

This has nothing to do with waves and generations of feminism. It's about misogynist assholes and pricks who are everywhere; on the web, on the street, at work and in our homes.

The world has never been safe for women, neither the real world nor the virtual world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by margrace:
[b]Until women agree to work together this will continue.[/b]

---

Hi margrace.

I would suggest that men must change, and that the onus is not placed on women. Both in terms of reducing/ending violence, as well as the access issues that you raise, margrace.

[thread drift]
Women are shut out of many more places than churches and parliament. Adequate-paying jobs for example. 2/3 of minimum wage earners are women, about half minimum wage earners are immigrants / people of colour.

[url=http://www.statcan.ca/english/studies/75-001/comm/2005_09.pdf] Stats Can pdf file[/url]
[/thread drift]

remind, I disagree with the statement "until women agree to work together this will continue".

Women have been working together for millenia, and much has changed around the world that has bettered the lives of women.

On the issue of violence against women, to return to the thread topic, I've said before that the anti-VAW movement desperately needs men on board, both in the movement, to reach other men, and in their own lives, to challenge violence and sexism when it happens around them.

I don't think the problem is "women agreeing to work together".

And only white women won the right to vote in 1918. This isn't my idea of "women agreeing to work together."

I think I see your point, remind, that too many women are endorsing the status quo by cooperating with it. It's a point made by feminists in the past - women, as the main caregivers for children, often reinforce the sexism in society while raising kids.

I often discover myself doing it in a million little ways with my son, and I'm usually quite conscious of that sort of thing! Just the other day, he decided he wanted to buy a little handheld video game (he saved up his money for the last year or two for it) that comes in black, white, and pink. I jokingly asked him if he wanted the pink one. Then I kicked myself - because I was reinforcing the idea that boys don't want pink and that making that colour choice would cause teasing to happen! The great thing is, the teenaged guy helping us at the store saw me kind of say, "I'm just kidding, there's nothing wrong with pink anyhow," and he said, "Yeah, pink's okay - it's all in style now for guys to wear pink shirts, haven't you seen that?" I laughed and said, "Well, I saw it in the 80's." He said, "It's baa-aaack."

But...do we blame the women who raise their children to conform to a sexist society, or do we blame the sexist society itself? I have often faced this dilemma as a parent: do I force (or in some cases, allow) my son to not conform and then have him face social sanction? Or do I give in occasionally and tell myself that I'm giving him the tools he needs to survive in this society?

Sometimes it's not an easy decision. Feminist women can't change society by themselves, although we certainly have been an excellent influence for change.

I think in this particular case when it comes to web stalking and harassment - I think this is an example of technology moving way faster than society's - and feminism's - reaction time. We haven't worked out a coherent response to it, nor have we even worked out a coherent theory that explains what causes the phenomenon. Like bcg, I'm also not sure that this is merely about "women working together". This is about a combination of bullying, of "star stalking" (since the woman in this case is an author who is somewhat famous in her field), of misogyny, and of group dynamics in an online cybercommunity of bloggers. And about patriarchy itself since that's the societal "system" that all of this is happening under, and which makes people feel that it's acceptable to treat some women this way, if they're a big enough name, as if becoming a big name means they're "asking for it" when it comes to strangers who hate them and love them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
[b]

In this particular case, under discussion from the link above, I am not sure it is even an act against a women. Or really even what is truely at play.[/b]

---

If you read through some of the associated materials (Some not safe for work) you'll find out that this woman's blog topic is about designing software... yet some jackass, or jackasses have decided to target her in a threateningly sexual way. I won't get into the details and how these people have come after her, as it's all available through the various links, but there is no way in my eyes this isn't an act against women.

Bringing the kind of sexualized comments into a discussion of software design can really only be interpreted one way. I just can't see any way that it's in any way relative to the discussion.

quote:

---

remind: When female movie stars and singers are targeted in such a manner, I do not believe it is an attack upon me as a female. And I feel much the same here.

Males of prominence, are similarily targeted and I am sure men, in general, do not feel they are being targeted because male authors/singers and movie stars are being targeted in a sexual harassment manner.

---

remind, this woman wasn't targetted because she is a woman, she was targetted [i]in the particular form that the targetting took[/i] because she is a woman.

Yes, well-known people, like movie stars and singers, both men and women, risk stalkers, etc because of their prominence. It's certainly not high on my list of "things to get all riled up about". But the manner in which this happens to women is inseparable from the sexism of our society.

And excuse my bluntness, but "I do not believe it is an attack upon me as a female"? So what, if you don't believe that? I myself don't feel personally at risk when young women are targetted on university campuses, or at 2am leaving clubs, [i]so the fuck what?[/i] These kinds of targettings are grounded in sexism and hatred of women, and that's the reason to frame this as an issue of sexism, and for all feminists to be enraged. I shudder to think that any of us engage as activists only when we feel targetted personally. This completely contradicts my view that men must be engaged in working on ending systemic violence against women.

As for this:

quote:

---

remind: Also, Canada in 1920 was a much different country than now, and it may be a quibble, but the majority of women who were not white were FN's and Asian, with a smattering of POC in the Atlantic provinces. Why were they not out in the street with white women fighting for their rights?

---

I won't further contribute to thread-drift, and remind, you know I respect you, but this statement is steeped in lack of information about how women of colour have been organizing in Canada for over a century. I may begin a new thread on this in the AR forum.

Having lived in AUS (WA and SA) and NZ for several years where woman got the vote very early on, I can tell you the only reason they were 'given' this by men was because in those days wealthy men ran the country and had wives and daughters, whereas the poor people didn't have wives. The rich figured they could keep their party in power by giving their wives and daughters the votes, and the little woman would vote as told by their men.
I think the most important thing to do is to act responsibly as mothers. We need to teach our son's we are not angels, but we are important. and they are not more important than the girls, eg going to their sports events, getting help around the house, listening, hugging them, feeding them. I realise these are basic, but it's not being done enough in the world.

quote:

---

Caissa: The first federal votes for women in Canada were also designed to perpetuate the status quo. ie. Canada's involvement in the Great War.

---

Not quite. Manitoba women were the first in Canada to win the vote [in 1916].

quote:

---

Women in Canada did not always have the same electoral rights as men. They won the vote through their tireless insistence upon it, expressed through intense and imaginative campaigns. Their efforts were finally rewarded. In 1916, Manitoba was the first province to pass legislation allowing women to vote in provincial elections. This breakthrough paved the way towards new suffrage laws throughout the country, where similar lobbying was going on. Within nine years of Manitoba's suffrage legislation, the federal and most other provincial governments passed laws granting women the vote (1916-25), with Quebec following suit in 1940. Since the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, universal electoral rights are protected in Canada through constitutional law.

---

[url=http://www.pc.gc.ca/canada/proj/fcdv-wwv/index_e.asp]Women winning the vote in Canada[/url]

The names of Nellie McClung and other Manitoba women shall live forever in Canadian history.

quote:

---

She and her colleagues from the Winnipeg Free Press, E. Cora Hind and Lillian Beynon Thomas among others, were instrumental in obtaining full suffrage for women with their backing of the new Liberal government, thereby making Manitoba the first province in Canada to extend this right to women.

---

[url=http://www.gov.mb.ca/wd/publications/whm2000_bios.html#Nellie%20McClung]... Manitoba Women[/url]

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Yea, well, I wanted to write Nellie McClung's name and I'm kinda in a Manitoba mood. [i]Mea culpa[/i].

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[b]

[url=http://www.gov.mb.ca/wd/publications/whm2000_bios.html#Nellie%20McClung]... Manitoba Women[/url]

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ][/b]

---

The name of Nellie McClung should live in infamy not in celebration. Yes she was for rights for some people but her discriminatory views override her good points. Don't believe me ask the women sterilized because of her vocal advocacy of Eugenics. In my opinion misguided people like her gave legitimacy to an evil idea that evil people took up and turned into the holocaust.

It is an insult to disabled women everywhere to still assert that Nellie was some sort of hero. And like many bad laws its effects were felt by the most marginalized in society. Poor and uneducated or worse still poor uneducated and native then watch out Nellie's Sterilization Act was meant for you.

Edited to add:

The link above doesn't even mention her Eugenics advocacy and the harmful effects the sterilizartion acts caused across Western Canada

[ 04 April 2007: Message edited by: kropotkin1951 ]