Letters to the Editor
-
Womaning up
I think there are a few elements at work here. One is that the anonymity of the net relaxes the internal censors, the fuckwad effect. It's too easy, in an anonymous post, to give in to one's own baser impulses. I've learned that if I can't put my name to it, I probably shouldn't be saying it.
I do think, though, that we should not underestimate snark as a form of verbal violence. It's the weapon of the Queen Bee, and while it doesn't seem as crude as sexual threats, it's the difference between a stiletto and a club. Both are equally deadly, even if one seems more elegant. Snarky comments about men's penis size, income, occupation and social life are right up there, in my opinion, with comments about women's weight, appearance and personality, regardless of obscenities used or not used.
I saw the Kathy Sierra mess in the BBC before Salon mentioned it. I thought she was overreacting until I took a look at her blog. Creating Passionate Users isn't Pandagon. Ms Sierra's writing is gentle, full of qualifiers, intended to ask questions in as non-offensive a manner as possible.
In other words, she wasn't the internet equivalent of a woman wearing next to nothing in a crowded biker bar. She was, metaphorically, modestly dressed in a library, and got attacked anyway. Darned right she'll never be the same again.
Who would? She just lost the illusion that anything short of an Afghan burqa made from sackcloth will protect her from the more vile forms of attention, and naturally she's badly shaken by it. No matter what you do or how gently you do it, someone will find an excuse to hate on you and express it in a sexually violent manner. The safety of public modesty, in real life or online, is an empty promise.
Facing this fact involves shedding a certain amount of innocence, but which is better? Being easily spooked, a traditionally feminine trait, or being able to deal with this decisively?
It may look like women need to man up, but really we need to woman up. Becoming stronger doesn't mean we become more masculine. It means rejecting weakness as a female trait. Those are two different things.
According to the BBC, Ms Sierra reported everything to the appropriate authorities, so her response wasn't entirely weak. Verbally over the top, maybe, but not entirely weak. Legally, she did the right thing.
Does any woman who has any kind of public presence ask for this stuff? Only if we consider being female and having a public presence a crime.
-
But wait. Maureen Dowd is "fagged-out".
Joan Walsh, when you stop allowing publication of columns where Camille Paglia is allowed to refer to someone as "fagged-out media scold" (and I should point out the irony that this is a woman being referred to), you'll have just a little credibility on the topic of misogyny, threats and general over-the-top verbal abuse on the Web.
When I read that latest column by Paglia I wrote then that she's using the term "fag" as a slur in the same way Ann Coulter famously did in reference to John Edwards. It's meant to be an insult because you know, what's worse than being labeled or associated with faggots?
And then it's being used on the Web with a link to a bit of writing on the Web by Maureen Dowd. I'm no fan of Dowd because of the her problems with fabrication but that's a criticism of substance. Calling her a "fagged-out media scold" is not. It's an slur only. One might even say that Dowd is being subjected to abuse a male columnist critical of media and political media wouldn't. Is Salon ready to publish an article that refers to Media Matters' David Brock as "fagged-out"? That would be a gratuitous insult, right? So why isn't it considered the same when it's aimed at a woman, Dowd?
And as a gay man I ask why isn't it considered a gratuitous insult to gay men in general, the use of the word "fag" to imply an ultimate sort of contemptuousness of another?
I can't really say I disagree with anything you're writing about here. In fact, I think it's all spot-on. It just seems hypocritical given that you're allowing a similar dynamic at Salon not in the "letters" but in the columns -- the very things that are center to the role of an editor.
-
Rhinoceros Skin
As a left-lib media critic (and erstwhile blogger) for Canada's biggest daily, I have been the target of the same sort of attacks for years.
Nothing new though. As a blonde TV news Barbie I was stalked, approached by heavy breathers on the street and sent soiled lingerie in unmarked packages.
Later, the obscenities came via phone calls and snail mail.
But, like you, it escalated in the e-age, when it's simpler for the emotionally stunted -- taking a break from their one-handed surfing of the porn sites -- to fire their frustrations at the real live strong, successful and opinionated women who would never give them the time of day in real life.
Why else would they be so fixated on the political persuasion of our genitals? Or how they would shut us up?
And so, I developed, as Tom Petty calls it, rhinoceros skin. I realize that their pathetic missives say more about them than me. I always reply, and I always mock them. Or, depending on my mood, I ignore them. Sometimes, if I am feeling really clever, I thank them for their mail, and tell them that every hit/email I get, my employers pay me an extra dime!
The trick is, never let them see you sweat.
Indeed, I don't anymore.
While this affair is deplorable, I think the resultant uproar just reinforces the assholes and misogynists. They now have reason to believe they have an effect on us.
They now know they can silence us.
Well, include me out. This broad ain't shutting up or hiding out.
-
casual insults versus civil discourse
I have been reading Salon since its inception. This is my first post.
It's not about being able to tolerate insults and attacks. It's not about freedom of speech. As others pointed out, a salon can be a place to have thoughtful conversations, a place where people can agree to disagree without personally attacking each other. Regardless of what we might say, words do matter -- and they can hurt, deeply!
My own theory is that there are a lot of lonely, hurting people and the Internet is their only outlet. What we may be seeing is collective pain and self-hatred turned against others.