Sexism, Misogyny and the rise and rise and rise of the internet asshole....

originally posted by: tony9802

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: undo

In what you just said I notice how, once again, nothing is ever a woman's fault.

I'm watching the video you posted, and I was wondering if you could tell me what is meant by this idea of a feminazi..I've been away from academic circles for some time, and have not had the opportunity to observe the evolution of feminism on campus' nationwide, or worldwide and I'm wondering what discussions look like academically during a time when we're all waiting for a third world war, sharia invasions, etc.. how do feminists currently view politics as we see politics unfolding on a daily basis..

In any case, what is a feminazi,

I authored a thread in response to what I consider the incorrect usage of the terms feminist, feminism, and feminazi in this thread. I don't want to derail the discussion here, so I'll simple address where the term feminazi came from.
It can be attributed to Rush Limbaugh, and this is what he said;

mediamatters.org...

I prefer to call the most obnoxious feminists what they really are: feminazis. Tom Hazlett, a good friend who is an esteemed and highly regarded professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, coined the term to describe any female who is intolerant of any point of view that challenges militant feminism. I often use it to describe women who are obsessed with perpetuating a modern-day holocaust: abortion. There are 1.5 million abortions a year, and some feminists almost seem to celebrate that figure. There are not many of them, but they deserve to be called feminazis.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed. Their unspoken reasoning is quite simple. Abortion is the single greatest avenue for militant women to exercise their quest for power and advance their belief that men aren't necessary. They don't need men in order to be happy. They certainly don't want males to be able to exercise any control over them. Abortion is the ultimate symbol of women's emancipation from the power and influence of men. With men being precluded from the ultimate decision-making process regarding the future of life in the womb, they are reduced to their proper, inferior role. Nothing matters but me, says the feminazi. My concerns prevail over all else. The fetus doesn't matter, it's an unviable tissue mass.

Feminazis have adopted abortion as a kind of sacrament for their religion/politics of alienation and bitterness. [The Way Things Ought to Be, Rush Limbaugh, pages 194-195]

I never use the term, and I'm unsure how many here would like to be associated with the words of Limbaugh, but in essence this is the original usage of the term. I'm dubious that many posters here would support the idea that women are looking to usurp men's power by compulsively having abortions.

originally posted by: neformore
So why aren't these assholes rounded on/drowned out/stepped on? Why aren't the nomal guys - the decent ones - the thinkers, the responsible ones, why aren't we reporting this in droves? Why aren't we acting like a society should do?

 

Because the problem is less acute than you are trying to paint it. Controversial figures recieve abuse regardless of gender, this is just due to the nature of the internet, with anonymity, trolling culture and very low effort to post required. Women do recieve sexist abuse on the internet but it is not a common thing, except maybe on certain sites that can be easily avoided or when they are in the center of some controversy.

Also, freedom of speech. Only specific threaths where there is a reason to believe they will be carried out can be legally punished. This doesnt apply to vast majority of online abuse (but it could apply to the most egregious examples, tough).

Let me start by acknowledging your position as "moderator" as you yourself place out there on a silver platter.
Your position is well understood, I am just a pleab, a peasant in comparison, I get it oh master.
In your thinly guised misused term of asshole, I will gladly step forward and fulfill your wildest desires and wishes because your claim that "moderate Muslims" have stepped up to the plate is a far cry from reality.

You sit there and condemn others for pointing out your sides inadequate response to beheadings and other atrocities committed towards humanity as we cruise through a new twenty first century of supposed enlightenment. Well played oh experienced sir master of internet supremacy. May I be allowed to bow to your enlightenment as you pass by my assholeness?

a reply to: cuckooold

Thank you so much.. I saw the thread you recently started, and I have left a few comments there.. this term or concept is actually important, since it's not a concept conceived by Feminists themselves.. all on the contrary! Rush Limbaugh of all people! In the end, it seems to denote a level of seriousness towards Feminisim.. the origins of the term are obviously repugnant nonetheless.. thanks mate!

a reply to: undo

My understanding currently is that FemiNazism is a term coined actually by Rush Limbaugh in opposition to Feminism generally. He is saying that Feminists are feminazis because they support more rights and freedom, support abortion, etc. Otherwise, this term is used to denote a certain type of severity in Feminism, perhaps a certain type of militance which is ordinarally natural, given all the opposition to Feminists generally. I think most people do not know what Feminism is actually even all about, with that in mind here is a link to a new thread just created, where discussion about this very same topic has thankfully already begun: and here is that link! www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: tony9802

k well i will rephrase it as extreme feminism. radical feminism?

Here's an interesting flip side.

Erin Patria Margaret Pizzey (born 19 February 1939) is an English family care activist and a novelist. She became internationally famous for having started one of the first women's refuges (called women's shelters in Canada and the U.S.) in the modern world, Chiswick Women's Aid, in 1971, the organisation known today as Refuge. Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally as capable of violence as men. Pizzey has said that the threats were from militant feminists.

SOURCE

By this time, I was very aware that while many of the women were indeed ‘innocent victims of their partner’s violence,’ many were not. Of the first hundred women that came into my refuge, sixty two were as violent as the men they left. They were not ‘victims of their partner’s violence.’ They were ‘victims of their own violence.’ Most of these women had experienced sexual abuse and violence in their own childhoods. Not only were they violent in the refuge but they were also violent and abusive to their children. They were the women most likely to go back to their violent partners or if they left, to go on to form another violent relationship. These were the women who most need our love and concern. I also saw all the men who came looking for their partners and their children. I could see quite plainly that domestic violence was not a gender issue. Both men and women could be equally violent. What I had to say was suppressed. Feminist journalists and radical feminist editors in publishing houses controlled the flow of information to the public. By now the feminist movement had a strangle hold on the subject of domestic violence. They had found a cause to further their political vision of a world without the family and without men. They also had the access to money. The abuse industry was born.

Because of my opposition to the hijacking of the refuge movement, I was a target for abuse. Anywhere I spoke there was a contingent of screaming, heckling feminists waiting for me. Hounslow Council decided to proceed against me in court and I was packed to go to prison for most of the twelve years that I ran my refuge. Abusive telephone calls to my home, death threats and bomb scares, became a way of living for me and for my family. Finally, the bomb squad, asked me to have all my mail delivered to their head quarters. The final outrage occurred when I was asked to travel to Aberdeen University to stand as a candidate for the post of Rector for the University in 1981. I was hopeful that I could have an influence on the young students at the university. At the polling booths Scottish Women’s Aid made it their business to hand out leaflets claiming that I believed that women ‘invited violence,’ and ‘provoked male violence,’ this was the gist of their message.

Exhausted and disillusioned at the growing hostility towards men in the Courts and the lack of support for family life from the government, I went reluctantly into exile with my children and grandchildren. My plan was to go to Santa Fe, New Mexico to write novels. I thought then that I could reach the people who read my non-fiction in my novels. Very soon I was running another refuge nearby and working against sexual abusers and paedolphiles. I found to my cost that Santa Fe was sufficiently lawless to attract these dangerous people. When I returned to England for the publication of my book ‘PRONE TO VIOLENCE,’ I was met with a solid wall of feminist demonstrators. ‘ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS,’ ‘ALL MEN ARE BATTERERS,’ read the placards. The police insisted that I have an escort all round England for my book tour. By then I knew that my position in America could not be permanent. The women’ movement there was even stronger and their strangle hold over the refuges( called shelters) and access to government and state resources was almost absolute. Although I was invited to lecture, every time I did the gender feminists were waiting to invade my workshops and to heckle my speeches. The threats and the persecution began again. Finally, one of my dogs was shot on Christmas day on my property, and I knew the time had come to leave.

SOURCE

originally posted by: neformore
Am I reading some of these posts right?

Are some of you saying it's ok because it's "freedom of speech"?

Imagine you are out in a bar with your significant other, or daughter and some random guy walks up to her in the middle of your conversation because he's heard something she said and he disagrees with, tells her she's a slut and walks off, then comes back a few minutes later and calls her a whore, then comes back again and tells her he's going to track down where she lives and rape her because she's stupid and looks like the type that could do with a good rape to sort her out

Think about that. You'd be sitting there telling her it's just freedom of speech.

Except you wouldn't. You'd have taken his head off, or called the cops, or the venue security and had the guy removed, or all three.

And anyone who suggests they'd do otherwise is a liar.

So why sit at your computer and defend it as "freedom of speech"?

Thats a false analogy, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Threats in person are by their nature far more dangerous than threats over the internet. There is no element of imminent harm. We should treat them differently because they are different. Its impossible to harm someone over the net (hurt feelings are not real harm). Sticks and stones etc..


No Offense: The New Threats to Free Speech

Various events over the past few years have convinced me that the "SJW" Far Left is now a greater threat to freedom of expression in western countries (and freedom in general) than extremist conservatives. "Think of the women" seems to be the new "think of the children" argument, used to justify further limitations of our rights.

Just to get some things clear:
1. You dont have a right to not be offended.
2. Only credible threats should ever be prosecuted by the state, not jokes or trolling. This means that if someone who lives on the other side of the country sends you a tweet that he is going to rape you, with no other indications that he is actually planning to do so, it should not be a crime, because he did not mean it.
3. Every popular person with a remotely controversial opinion will get rape and death threats over the internet, because there will always be trolls. This is not a problem to be solved, its a thing to be ignored. Why? Because the only effective way to solve it is to limit internet anonymity and freedom, which is simply unacceptable. Dont supply the wannabe internet censors with new arguments, TPTB are itching to censor the internet, and you are doing their dirty work for them. Dont be an useful idiot.

a reply to: neformore

The internet is an exteriorization of the human mind. It is not only a few assholes that are ruining it, it simply shows what the current society has become. It is not a minority, it represents the whole humanity. All that use internet are concerned. Get used to it because there is no solution to this problem since it IS what the common joe looks like when no laws prevent him from showing his true face aka anonymity. But thanks to that one it is also possible to get important informations one wouldnt share if his id was exposed.

Dont forget, you are no different from them. On a bad day or in some wrong context you might also act like these a$$ you are complaining about. Humanity expanded dramatically quantitatively but in term of quality ahem.. Lets just say mostly folks are a waste of space contributing to nothing but degrading a lot oh yes. Its the reality you are in either you accept or deny it, doesnt matter.

a reply to: _damon

I generally prefer not to make posts like this.
But........

Well said sir!

a reply to: neformore

I always thought you were a woman nef silly me

I never go on social media so i do not see any bigoted talk but people should be more polite to each other that is why i like ATS

Oh noes! Our fragile little women need protecting from bad words posted on the Internet by an anonymous idiot.

C'mon, man... if I were a woman I would be more insulted by this than the sexist comments.

Perceiving women as unable to protect themselves from online comments is a little bit sexist in itself IMO. They need a big strong man to protect them, right?

Quick, CENSOR EVERYTHING. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE WOMEN!!

in reguards to all this talk to i need to give another opinion....my dad(the asshole he was) always told me this and in my opinion it rings true....
its not the loud ones you have to worry about...its the quiet ones....
drop it into any situation you want...
in real life or online......the guys that are running off with the mouth and saying theyre going to rape or do this and that are not going to do # except run the mouth.....
know what i mean....

carlin said it too......maybe thats where my dad got it from...

talking about being in a bar...."watch the loud one....watch the loud one"

he said while you are watching the loud one, the quiet one will f'in kill you....
---------------------

to take it a step further, its the same with size.....
big ass dudes are intimidating looking and the ones people are 'afraid' of.....
its the little guys that will whoop some ass.....

im not worried about the 6 foot 8, shredded up lou ferigno meat head lookin dude running his mouth.
im worried about the dude that is 5 foot 7 and not saying #

I think the media are focusing upon all the negativity surrounding the internet. When was the last time you read a positive story about the internet?

Day after day in all the papers, the focus is on all the bad things. They keep hammering away all the time. Western governments/the powers that be/ the establishment (whatever you want to call them) are hell bent on getting control of the internet, or limiting it in some way.

The internet is a medium of expression the likes of which there has never been before - and they can't stand it.

Well, there have been assholes as long as time has been recorded, and there always will be. It will never go away, you can't legislate attitude.

Better to get used to it, and ignore them rather than engage them because you are only fanning the flames.

They feed off of your disgust, and disagreement.

The only effective way to deal with them is to not let them get to you. I think a lot of people on here have failed in that regard.

a reply to: SensiblyReckless

Its not about protecting women per se. They should not need protecting.

Its about men being assholes.

I assume you - or anyone else who can't figure this out - are not in full control of your faculties if you cannot understand that threatening to rape someone is a heinous thing to do, as is threatening to kill them or their family.

Surely you can understand that? Can't you? After all you were intelligent to turn a computer on, find ATS and read the forum.

a reply to: myselfaswell

"Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." ~ Oscar Wilde

(Thrue) anonymity isn't the thing we are all fighting for?...
Your idea of being responsible and accountable is valid.
But you can not kiss goodbye internet anonymity. Not in this forum, anyways!
I would not come here, then... Wouldn't it be boring as hell?!

On the OP, this is an old feeling, a sort of (self) realization, an epiphany as old as the world.
What you see in others, is a thing you see in yourself. You know stuff and reflect on it...

What can be done?
You did the first thing to do: vent it out loud, tell others about how #ty the world is.
...But then, you will soon find yourself in an empty room, depressed.

This is the Call to do things and/or view the world in another way.

Personally, when I come to read/view things that triggers my "lizard brain", I carry on, not spending too much time trying to find a better take / perspective about it. The world is vast, an incredibly beautiful. Waste no time to start to look at this infinite part of you...

It is up to you now.

Godspeed.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: SensiblyReckless

Its not about protecting women per se. They should not need protecting.

Its about men being assholes.

i know what youre saying and i agree.

why do we feel women need to be protected in certain situations? i know i do....let me give a generic example

if i saw a man beating up on a woman, i would step in..(im talking about whoopin on her....not your every day marital type spat)

if i saw a man beating up on another man, i would not step in.....too many variables...i mean how do i know the guy whoopin on the other didne just chase him down after breaking into his house???
something to that effect......

i guess the same should be said in the first example though right?

how do i know the guy whoopin on the lady didnt just chase her down after she broke into his house?

thats not what pops in my head though.....if i saw a lady getting whooped on, my first instinct would be to step in to stop it.....i do not feel that way about a guy getting whooped on...

my general rule is to stay out of other peoples business but i cant help but feel the way i mentioned.

so i agree that women should not need to be protected but at the same time, i feel that instinct to step in on their behalf...

maybe its because i saw my mom get beat up by my dad every day...maybe it is because i am married and my wife is my world and i couldnt imagine ever hitting her...maybe its cause i have a daughter and i cant handle the thought of someone hurting her.....

i dont know why i feel that way for sure, just that i do....

you see what i am saying?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: WCmutant

what an interesting post. if you re-read it yourself, do you get the sense that there's so much data coming in that the only way to really make a decision about it is to go with your gut? otherwise, we're all just being drug around by our world views instead of reality

Undo,

I don't believe there is too much data coming in. Human beings are both complex and simple creatures. Yes, I said that. I could waste a whole post about how all the data is valid and why it works differently for each person.

The fact that human beings prefer to lie to themselves to hold onto worldviews and paradigms that serve no purpose other than to soothe their egos is actually the most complex a human gets - because of the complex web of lies a human will tell him/herself to maintain those lies can be astounding.

If you watch kids, they are simple. They become complex due to the need to fit into the corrupt, bull# based society that we've created and perpetuated.

I think we have become increasingly:
1. over sensitive to language and words
2. desirous of controlling the minutia of other people's lives and choices
3. too reliant on the law/government to solve problems
4. too intolerant of fighting and physical violence

I wrote this big long follow up to the above points. However, I will just say this - at nearly every point in our lives the attempt to control our thoughts and actions are in place. That's the reality of the world. Some people are free thinkers, and they will be labeled the dangerous ones.

The truth is we really are plugged into a Matrix. It's not as sci-fi cool as the movie The Matrix, but it works very similarly. We are given messages which many people repeat ad nauseam until it becomes a part of the social consciousness, and many have to lie to themselves (often willingly) to make the messages fit the prescribed model so they can feel as though they belong to the society.

Two of the messages are "World peace," and "fighting doesn't solve problems." They are strangely related, and one is very related to this topic about assholes on the internet. I won't go crazy with my thoughts on this. Needless to say they are both messages provided in our society.

Here's the problem - you can't regulate human behavior. There is a bare bones, foundation to the human condition that will ALWAYS attempt to break free of the controls placed on it from religion or government.

What I think we are seeing is the human spirit (the vicious side of it) desperately itching for fight by any means necessary.
(I will stop here, of course way more to say.)

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: SensiblyReckless

Its not about protecting women per se. They should not need protecting.

Its about men being assholes.

I assume you - or anyone else who can't figure this out - are not in full control of your faculties if you cannot understand that threatening to rape someone is a heinous thing to do, as is threatening to kill them or their family.

Surely you can understand that? Can't you? After all you were intelligent to turn a computer on, find ATS and read the forum.

No, I don't think you understand.

Yes, obviously threatening to rape someone is wrong, but those women who are also intelligent enough to turn a computer on and read a forum, are also intelligent enough to know when a threat is an actual threat to their safety, and some loser troll sat in his mother's basement is not a threat to their safety.

You are seriously underestimating women IMO. They aren't stupid and they aren't defenceless.