Confessions of a Neckbeard

[inverarity]

Following Christopher Priest's rant about the Arthur C. Clarke awards, there have been echoes reverberating all over the Internet, particularly as a result of Catherynne Valente's observation that a woman wouldn't get away with that shit.

This really shouldn't be that controversial. And yet, in the comments of Valente's own posts, as well as all the people talking about it, there are all these neckbeards engaging in lengthy diatribes about how it's so haaaaard to be a man and bitches be crazywomen can be so meeeeeeean!

I mean, some dude actually told Valente, after she recounted her own horrific childhood experiences of bullying and then stated that she's a rape survivor, that she had it easy! Because girls were totally mean to him in school!

Holy shit. Just STFU. STFU forever.

This strikes home for me because... I used to be That Guy. Okay, not the guy who told a rape survivor that women have it easy — I don't think I was ever that big of a douche. (If I was, I have thankfully blotted it from my memory and I'm just glad no one ever gave me the beat-down I deserved.) But I was your typical nerdy dude who was totally pro-feminism but could still pull out Mansplainin' 101 about how Women Don't Appreciate Nice Guys and Of Course No One Deserves To Be Raped But If You Walked Through Central Park At Night Flashing a Roll of Cash... and other classics in that vein.

I am pretty ashamed of my younger self, I am. (Not just for those things, but they certainly give me no small amount of painful recollection.)

I make no claim to perfection now. I try to engage viewpoints I don't agree with in a thoughtful manner, and if I still don't agree with them, I'll be measured in my disagreement unless it's just downright offensive or batshit insane. I keep a somewhat cynical eye on a lot of drama & social justice sites, agreeing with much of what is said, thinking that a lot more is rather unnuanced or self-serving or kneejerk, but unlike my younger self, I don't feel a need to jump in and say "U R RONG!" When I do get into it, I have learned to walk away from arguments that are unproductive or in which the other person is clearly a troll and sees all interactions as a win/lose binary that cannot be resolved until someone cries uncle.

The thing is, when this is an argument over Harry Potter, it's merely annoying, provoking a head shake and some eye-rolling, but when it's guys telling women that their silly lady-brains are seeing misogyny that doesn't really exist, it's contributing to the very thing they are claiming doesn't exist.

This also strikes home because of course I am a big genre fan, and I even like some of those big genre works that get neckbeards so het up when people criticize them. And yet, holy shit, the rage that spews out of the keyboard-wielding howler monkeys of the Internet when a woman criticizes the things they love!

Some (in)famous examples:

• Liz Bourke's eviscerating review of Theft of Swords.
  
• _allecto_ pretty much calling Joss Whedon a rapist.
  
• Sady Doyle calling George R. R. Martin creepy and misogynistic.
  
• Pretty much everything acrackedmoon writes at Requires Only That You Hate.
  

Now, I do not agree with what all of the above women say. And one can intelligently disagree with them. I mean, I think _allecto_'s criticisms of Joss Whedon, in particular, are reeeeeeeeally reaching (it's one thing to say you don't think his work deserves all its feminist accolades, it's quite another to say that perceived misogyny in his work means the man himself is a rapist). I haven't actually read A Game of Thrones so don't have much of an opinion on it, but Doyle does seem to stretch a few of her points a bit, and I understand she was pretty nasty to some feminist bloggers who disagreed with her. I love ROTYH, but I don't always agree with acrackedmoon (man, ACM, why you gotta keep harshin' on Evil Stevie? And I still like Harry Potter and The Name of the Wind, so nyah nyah!), and I think she can at times be a little too quick to go for the jugular.



But. All of these women get a shit-ton of nerdrage and fucking rape threats dumped on them. I read a lot of bombastic bloggers, male and female, and while men get namecalled and disagreed with, even at their most vitriolic it's usually more of a schoolyard let's-beat-each-other-up-and-have-a-beer-afterwards exchange that's as much backslapping as brawling. My worst and most nasty trolls did some taunting and dickwaving, but no one threatened me, and if they did, we'd both know they were full of shit and it was hot air. Kathy Sierra and Seanan McGuire have received death threats accompanied by personally identifying information.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?



ETA: Locked. Not because I'm a mean ol' lefty who can't stand to hear dissenting opinions (though I expect that's what jordan179 is going to claim), but because I have to go to work, I cannot access LJ at work, and I really don't want to read ten more pages of this shit when I get home.

Comments

[shinygobonkers.livejournal.com]

yeah, i read valentes post and it was just... sad/depressing because it speaks to things, both within the sci-fi/fantasy genre and much more broadly, that are just...true :/

(and depressing because to me, its not really an individual matter because individuals, if they are so inclined, can always grow, change, expand their worldview etc. but on a much broader, society/cultural level...things change, and yet they don't...)

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with Martin Luther King, Jr. on this one: "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." I think the society/culture of our county and planet have changed a lot, even in just the past 50-60 years. There are setbacks, of course, and in a lot of ways we're still the same. But in the long run, I think things do change. Just really, really slowly.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with the implicit theory that men should especially avoid publicly disagreeing with women just because they are men. IMO that would not be showing "respect" for women -- people I respect I can disagree with logically; it is only people I do not respect whom I fear to disagree with because I think they can't handle it.

Yes, obviously threats are wrong.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I don't agree with the implicit theory that men should especially avoid publicly disagreeing with women just because they are men.

Come off it, I didn't say or imply any such thing. I do think a man should think once, twice, and maybe three times before telling a woman she's being a shrill hysterical bitch when she says that men "joking" about wanting to fuck her is misogynistic, though.

[crinklebat.livejournal.com]

The problem isn't the fact of public disagreement, which of course is expected and even hoped for when one expresses one's opinions in a public forum. It's the tone of that disagreement that's troubling.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

Of course, if you bring that up you get accused of making a "tonal arguement." Which really means "How *dare* you demand that I be civil! You have no idea how oppressed I am. I have a RIGHT to be hostile!!"

And I have had this arugment made to me.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I have seen people use "tone argument" in that manner, but I've seen a lot more whiny assholes complain about how mean people are being to them when it's pointed out that they are being assholes.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

This being the net, I guess basic civility is often too much to ask for.

[hermione-vader.livejournal.com]

He didn't say men should stop disagreeing with women because they are men. He said that men should stop jumping to rape-related comparisons and threats just because a woman criticizes something they like. They wouldn't do that to a man in an argument, so why do it to a woman?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm morally, logically and stylistically opposed to argument by means of rape-threats, for the many obvious reasons. Some of the people he linked to, however, do believe in polylogism where race and gender are concerned -- that designated "victim" groups must be treated differently than "non-victim" groups: and to that, I am opposed.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I'm rather interested in the notion that these days being a victim seems to absolve you of any responsibility at all for your actions.

For example, let's say someone is stumbling drunk and wanders into Central Park at night and gets robbed. While it's not right that they got robbed does this person bear no responsibility for engaging in actions that increased the odds that they would be targeted?

Here from yuki_onna

[penguineggs.livejournal.com]

Are you actually a troll or just an unbelievably superficial reader? The OP does in fact say

But I was your typical nerdy dude who was totally pro-feminism but could still pull out Mansplainin' 101 about how Women Don't Appreciate Nice Guys and Of Course No One Deserves To Be Raped But If You Walked Through Central Park At Night Flashing a Roll of Cash... and other classics in that vein.

Which is exactly the analogy you've just whipped out. Oh, dear.

And, in any case, the "actions that increased the odds that they would be targeted" to which yuki_onna and the OP alluded were "expressing opinions in a public place while identifying as female". Which, as numerous examples both in yuki_onna's post and testified to by personal experience by large numbers of women who've done it demonstrate, in terms of risk-taking behaviours probably is equivalent to stumbling drunk round Central Park waving a wad of cash, but - as per the current debate - we rather think shouldn't be.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

It is possible to acknowledge that high-risk behaviors are unwise without telling people who were victimized, "Well, you kind of asked for it." I mean, how is that helpful? If the victim did indeed do something foolish, then s/he probably knows that already and wagging your finger at them serves no purpose but to make you feel righteous and make them feel horrible, and if it doesn't mitigate the guilt of the offender, then it doesn't really matter in a criminal sense, does it?

I mean, sure, in an abstract sense, it's fine to warn people that they shouldn't wander drunk through Central Park at night. Great, safety awareness is a valuable thing. But people who pull out the "Aren't people who put themselves at risk responsible for the consequences?" argument are the ones whose first response when a woman is raped is to start asking why was she wearing that what was she doing there why was she with him why did she drink so much did she lead him on etc. etc. etc. So I am highly suspicious of this theoretical notion you are so "interested" in.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

The problem is that people often confuse the concepts of legal/moral fault with poor planning. The woman who walks into Central Park at night wearing skimpy clothing and flashing a wad of cash has a perfect right to do so, and the Law should support her right against any rapists or muggers who claim otherwise -- this includes her right to defend herself from same. It is however a very bad plan, and I wouldn't advise anyone whose safety I cared about to actually do it.

The legal and moral fault, as always, lies with the criminal, not his victim.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

For example, let's say someone is stumbling drunk and wanders into Central Park at night and gets robbed. While it's not right that they got robbed does this person bear no responsibility for engaging in actions that increased the odds that they would be targeted?

That person would be guilty of poor planning, but since they have both the legal and moral right to wander as they will through Central Park at night, drunk or otherwise, the perpetrator cannot use "they were asking for it" as a defense. Being an easy victim is a bad idea on the part of the potential victim, but the fact that a potential victim was easy neither exculpates nor even mitigates the actions of the criminal in choosing to commit a crime against that individual.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I think your post here was ignored because of dv8nation's derailing, so I'm going to produce what I hope to be a thoughtful response.

I understand why you are opposed to treating "victim groups" differently than "non-victim groups," I do. And most of the time, this is a good position to take--as throughout history, differential treatment had tended to end badly for the victim groups. But there are exceptions.

The fact of the matter is, because of centuries (or even millennia) of oppression, certain actions and words have a special meaning and thus a special effect on victimized groups. For example: If you tell a woman (as a man) "Shut the fuck up," you're playing into a very long-lasting trope of oppression where men silence women. Telling a man "Shut the fuck up" just doesn't have the same impact. I could give many more examples.

The point is, you should treat everyone with respect and dignity--in terms of that, you should treat all groups the same. But because everyone is different, what it means to treat them with respect will necessarily be different for everyone. In the case of groups historically (and presently) subject to oppression, I really don't think it's too much to ask not to engage in actions which reflect that oppression.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I understand why you are opposed to treating "victim groups" differently than "non-victim groups," I do.

(*nods*) It's because I believe in the fundamental equality of all human beings, qua human beings.

The fact of the matter is, because of centuries (or even millennia) of oppression, certain actions and words have a special meaning and thus a special effect on victimized groups.

That is something which the individuals belonging to these groups must learn to overcome. Seriously -- this sounds harsh, but the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it -- which is to say to grow thicker skins. And I am quite aware that this is sometimes hard, but it is the only way to secure one's equality as one's own inherent right, rather than as a gift dispensed by some generous outside authority (which note, can take that gift away on a moment's notice should the member of a "victim group" displease them).

The point is, you should treat everyone with respect and dignity--in terms of that, you should treat all groups the same. But because everyone is different, what it means to treat them with respect will necessarily be different for everyone. In the case of groups historically (and presently) subject to oppression, I really don't think it's too much to ask not to engage in actions which reflect that oppression.

Yes. Actually it is. Going out of one's way to be nicer to an individual because he or she belongs to a group that was historically oppressed means that one does not really respect his or her standing as your own equal.

Now, going out of one's way to be nice to people on general principles is another matter. But note that some of the people linked to in the original post explicitly state that they have the right to be rude to white males, and that those white males do not have the right to be rude back to them.

That argument I will accord no respect.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

For example: If you tell a woman (as a man) "Shut the fuck up," you're playing into a very long-lasting trope of oppression where men silence women. Telling a man "Shut the fuck up" just doesn't have the same impact. I could give many more examples.

I don't argue by telling people to "shut the fuck up." Such an argument is a logical null, equivalent to "hoopty doopty WOOOP!!!" and refutable by whatever other string of nonsense syllables someone chooses to type. People who argue like this need to be pointed at and laughed at -- regardless of their race or gender, or the race or gender of the person to whom they have made this argument.

Still less do I argue by threatening to beat up, rape or muder people. Such "argument" is in fact both criminally and civilly actionable -- it's called "making a terroristic threat." Again, regardless of the race or gender of the sender or recipient.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

And now for my fourth comment on this post...

I too was once "That Guy." I don't think I ever downplayed rape or anything like that, but I was the type who thought racism and sexism were basically over so why are the women and minorities still complaining? For various reasons (the biggest I assume just being simple maturity) I think I've grown out of it to a certain extent, though of course I'm sure I still make mistakes.

Incidentally, this was the same time that I was a libertarian. I find just from anecdotal evidence that almost all (white male) libertarians I know also tend to downplay sexism and racism. There's probably a connection here but I'm not sure what it is.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

The connection is that libertarians are assholes. I've never met one who wasn't.

(And yeah, while I never went full libertarian, I also had some libertarian leanings at the height of my asshole years.)

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I have known several libertarians who aren't assholes. Admittedly the more libertarian they are the more likely they are to be an asshole.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm a (white male) libertarian who is quite aware of the long history of sexism and racism, and wants to see it overcome. I don't think it can be overcome by discrimination in the opposite direction, but rather only by treating people as equals and demanding equal treatment from them in return, no matter who you or they are in terms of group identity.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Just one question: Do you think institutional sexism and racism still exist now, in the year 2012?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

To some extent, yes. Though not always to the benefit of white males any more: some of it directly benefits particular nonwhite groups, or women.

I want to see equality under the law, not a grant of privilege A, B and C to whites and D and E to males countered by F and G to blacks, H, I and J to females, and so forth. Making the system of privilege more complex is not the same thing as making it more equal or fair.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

To some extent, yes.

Good! So you agree that, "to some extent," women and minorities are still oppressed, and you benefit directly from that oppression, yes?

Though not always to the benefit of white males any more: some of it directly benefits particular nonwhite groups, or women.

Please don't bring up affirmative action; it really is not very important and I don't feel like debating it. Not as much as I don't feel like debating Trayvon Martin's murder, but still.

EDIT: When I say affirmative action is "not very important," I mean that it in no way constitutes either racism or oppression of anyone and so I don't see a need to argue about it in the context of this conversation. Obviously as an issue in itself it is important, no matter what your stance on it is. (I personally think we should probably have class-based affirmative action instead of race-based, but considering stuff like this I can see where the support for race-based affirmative action comes from.)

I want to see equality under the law,

I am not suggesting legal reparations and have never suggested legal reparations. I am suggesting that we actively try to enact social and cultural change. One part of that--a small part perhaps, but still a part--is to put a stop to our current situation where men get to say whatever they want, while if women step out of line they get volleys of sexist insults and rape threats hurled at them.

You are suggesting that the solution to the above situation is for women to grow thicker skin. I am suggesting that the solution is to get men to stop hurling sexist insults and rape threats. That is the debate we are having.