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

[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.

Re: Here from yuki_onna

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

I am not talking about those other debates. I am talking about the specific example I gave here. The rest of that all comes with a bunch of fandom baggage.

[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]

But people who pull out the "Aren't people who put themselves at risk responsible for the consequences?" argument ...

Stated this way, the flaw with this argument is obvious, because the answer is clearly "No," where the consequences derive from WRONGFUL ACTION by OTHERS. The full answer is "No, because the rapist was a free-willed human being who could have chosen not to violently transgress the rights of another."

Note that this applies to more than rape, and more than victimhood. It also applies to situations in which the victim was robbed or murdered, and it also applies to situations in which the prospective victim avoided victimization by means of successful self-defense.

The general moral rule, and (often but not often enough for the sake of justice) legal rule is that he who first significantly breaches the peace is responsible for the consequences. An example of this is that if a gang of armed robbers attack a convenience store and one of them is shot dead, the others are guilty of murder even though it was the store owner who fired the shots.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Btw, inverarity, I'm basically agreeing with you here.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

First, I'm using being robbed as an example as rape tends to inflame people. God knows if you add a sexual element to any debate it tends to go right to hell. And the point I'm making here is that just pointing out the someone did something is unwise is enough to make people treat you as some sort of SOB.

Second, I'm talking more about if something is *true* than if it's helpful.

[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.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

And I'm not disagreeing with that. But is it right to fully *absolve* someone of their actions just because their actions lead to them being victimized? Where does the line of their level of responsibility for themselves end in such situations, I suppose, is the question I'm getting at.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

As a general reply to all your posts in this thread:

This being the net, I guess basic civility is often too much to ask for. [re: tone argument]

The tone argument is not usually pulled out to maintain "basic civility." It's pulled out to dismiss legitimate criticism (usually of the person using the tone argument) because the criticism was couched in angry vocabulary.

And the point I'm making here is that just pointing out the someone did something is unwise is enough to make people treat you as some sort of SOB.

That's because of the context in which you're doing it.

Look, if you just randomly said one day to a woman "It's probably a bad idea to walk around in Central Park in skimpy clothing and flashing a wad of cash," she'd probably think you were an idiot (or think that you thought she was an idiot) but I doubt anyone would get upset. On the other hand, if you're talking about a rape that actually happened and you say "Well, it wasn't a very good idea for her to wear skimpy clothing and flash a wad of cash..." then you're clearly attempting to downplay the rape and thus people are going to get upset at you. It's the context that matters.

But is it right to fully *absolve* someone of their actions just because their actions lead to them being victimized?

Congratulations for loading that question so well. The answer is simple:

1) If the person did not commit something immoral, then yes. Doing something stupid does not mean you deserve to have something horrible happen to you.

2) On the other hand, if they did commit something immoral, then no--as long as their victimization fits the crime they committed. If you attempt to kill someone, you bear full responsibility for the intended victim killing you back. If you play around with someone's feelings, you bear no responsibility if that person rapes you.

3) Anyone who thinks that sometimes women share partial responsibility for being raped is an asshole.

Really, this isn't very complicated.

[shinygobonkers.livejournal.com]

ok, first of all, i must say i'm a bit amused at the central park reference because, these days at least, its actually one of the SAFER places to walk around at night, at least large parts of it...lol NYPD aplenty...

anyway, though, wanted to chime in to point out my problem with these kinds of 'was in the victims responsibility/fault' too arguments from a different perspective. Lets just say, for the sake of argument, that in SOME cases, perhaps yes, the victim took some reckless action that contributed to a rape. As some here have said, it doesn't absolve the perpetrator of THEIR responsibility for the crime, so dwelling on it is kind of pointless.'

More than that, though, the fact that it becomes the norm to ask those kinds of questions - how did the victim contribute to their victimization - even in an EXTREME case like Bob the lurking rapist jumps out of the bushes in the park and pounces, creates an atmosphere wherein rape victims do not feel safe in coming forward and reporting crimes committed against them.

Most rapes are NOT of the stranger jumped out of the bushes in a dark alley type. Statistically actually, in all violent crimes, men are more likely to be attacked by strangers while women are more likely to be attacked by people they know. So say a woman goes out on a date, lets the man pay or whatever, lets him come in to her place for a bit afterwards. Then he tries to take things further, she clearly, articulately, forcefully says no multiple times. He rapes her anyway. Afraid of further escalating violence, she does not fight back. Afterwards, in considering best course of action...any rape victim who doesn't live in a bubble KNOWS that reporting the crime will lead to questions:

But didn't she want it?
Why did she invite him inside then?
Why didn't she fight if it really wasn't consensual?
What was she wearing?
What is her past sexual history?
Has she ever done anything the least bit dishonest?
What's her job?
How does she speak?
Is she a bitch, a whore?

What was a ten minute incident will turn into potentially months of ordeal with so many people, rather than offering sympathy for her ordeal, instead questioning not just her story but her moral character, her clothing choices, her intentions. And statistically, the likelihood that her word will be taken against the rapists in a court of law? The chances that this will all at least be worth it in that sense? Not very high.

And I don't mean necessarily to use gendered pronouns because though male rape is rarer, I do feel they have just as much trouble being taken seriously, albeit not for completely the same reasons.

By creating/buying into a culture where it is acceptable to focus on the potential fault/responsibility of the victim, you are creating environment where any LOGICAL victim is likely to see it as being in their best interests to NOT report their crime. It's the victims responsibility to deal with repercussions, mental and physical, while the rapist gets a free pass to do it again.

[kalbear.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is absolutely 100% right to absolve a victim of their actions if their actions are legal.

I don't see why it wouldn't be. I can't even understand why it wouldn't be. The notion that it isn't is frankly absurd.

[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.

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

An excellent post. I agree with you fully.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

That is something which the individuals belonging to these groups must learn to overcome.

*sigh* I assume you do not belong to one of the "victimized groups" we're talking about. However, even if you do, the following point still holds.

What you're saying is that people who belong to "victimized groups" should all have to overcome hundreds of years of oppression, while people who do not belong to such groups do not have to do this. In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves. This is very much not okay. The responsibility lies with the oppressors.

Given all the advantages white males have in today's world because they are white males, this really should not be a big deal.

the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it

Oh, give me a break. Equality is not something you "practice" (I have no idea what that even means). Rights only mean anything if they are respected by others, and ideally protected by an outside authority (and yes, I am aware that the "gift" can be taken away "on a moment's notice"--that's why we invented the Constitution). What, you think during Jim Crow all black people had to do was "grow thicker skins"?

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.

No, it means you recognize that while they are equal to you, they are also different from you, and since they are different they should be treated differently (yet still with respect obviously). Again: Because everyone is different, treating them with equal respect requires treating them differently. This is not complicated.

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 is not what they're saying. It's not a matter of being rude or polite. It's a matter of whether you're allowed to use slurs that have a long history behind them. Can you honestly not see that there's a difference between a black woman telling a white man he's a rabid animal, and a white man telling a black woman that? Here's a hint: The former was not commonly used to castigate an entire class of people for centuries.

Victims

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

*sigh* I assume you do not belong to one of the "victimized groups" we're talking about.

I was born and raised Jewish. So yet, I do belong to a group which was quite severely victimized: and is being victimized again east of the Atlantic. Though I realize that we're pointedly excluded from the list of "victim groups" currently popular among the Politically Correct.

And I was treated with extra suspicion, and even the threat of violence, in part because I "looked Jewish." Happened in New York City in the early 1980's. So it's not even purely historical or theoretical from my POV.

You know what? I don't let it dominate my life, and I don't imagine that I get any special rights or consideration for it. Nor do I hold that I am required to extend any special rights or consideration to anyone else based on their group identity -- only the rights and consdieration I extend to everyone, REGARDLESS of group identity.

What you're saying is that people who belong to "victimized groups" should all have to overcome hundreds of years of oppression, while people who do not belong to such groups do not have to do this.

Yes. Though, frankly, anyone who has personally suffered "hundreds of years of oppression" is advantaged, rather than disadvantaged -- they have enjoyed an incredibly long life. And I don't think we should repress the Long families -- they might just wind up leaving Earth on a starship if we do that.

Now, is this fair? Nope. But there is literally no way to make this fair, as both the oppressors and oppressed are usually dead, often long dead, in this sort of situation.

Ancient historical unfairnessess are inameliorable. All the people who are alive now can do is overcome their lingering consequences as best they can, and this means learning to be tough and determined, not learning to be whiny and demanding, because the former route leads to personal pride; the latter route leads to eternal dependence on Big Daddy State Justice.

In other words, you are saying that the responsibility for overcoming a long history of oppression lies with the oppressed groups themselves.

Yep.

This is very much not okay.

I'm sorry if this reality bothers you. Would you like to board the crosstime machine and emigrate to some more congenial reality, possibly ones with different human natures?

The responsibility lies with the oppressors.

That's nice. Since I'm not one of the "oppressors", save by tautological claim, and indeed in most cases the actual oppressors are either long-dead or very old by now, that diffuses the responsibility very nicely.

Consider your own life, though. How far have you ever gotten in achieving any end by claiming that someone else is responsible for your own situation? And how far, instead, have you gotten when you took responsiblity for your own life and began working to improve it -- not by petitioning other people for help, but by working hard and improving yourself?

Guilt

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

Given all the advantages white males have in today's world because they are white males, this really should not be a big deal.

That's very nice. And I tell you that I am a white male, and I am not going to give anyone any special help or consideration for not being a white male. And furthermore, I take the demand that I should to be itself quite HIGHLY oppressive, especially if backed with force.

And why not? I didn't do anything to oppress non-whites or non-males. And if someone else chose to favor me because of my magic "white male privilege," that was their choice.

I ... only ... feel ... guilty ... for ... things ... I ... do. I do not feel guilty for things that others do. The reason why is that I only control my own actions -- not the actions of others.

The term for this is "responsibility." The term for accepting unearned guilt is "neurotic guilt."

Practicing Equality

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

the only way to claim one's human equality is to practice it ...

Oh, give me a break. Equality is not something you "practice" (I have no idea what that even means).

To "practice" equality is to consider yourself to be fundamentally equal to others, and to treat other people as fundamentally equal to yourself, with your judgement of them being as individuals rather than members of a group.

If Mr. Able, who is white, respects Mr. Baker, who is black, as a fellow human being, and demands such respect in return as a condition of his own respect, then he is "practicing equality." If Mr. Able despises Mr. Baker for being black and demands excessive respect from Baker while treating him contemptuously, then he is being racist. But if Mr. Able gives Mr. Baker unearned respect while demanding little in return because Baker is black, then he is also being racist.

Rights only mean anything if they are respected by others, and ideally protected by an outside authority (and yes, I am aware that the "gift" can be taken away "on a moment's notice"--that's why we invented the Constitution).

If rights inhere equally in humans qua humans, then they are harder to take away. (Indeed, the logic of such a position was strong enough to lead to the abolition of black slavery in America). But if rights are distributed by the State to members of groups based on the groups they belong to, the distribution can always be changed, and no one is secure in the enjoyment of his rights.

What, you think during Jim Crow all black people had to do was "grow thicker skins"?

No, because they were legally disadvantaged, so they had to repeal Jim Crow. And now, during Affirmative Action, whites need to repeal Affirmative Action, for a milder version of the SAME REASON. People have rights as individual humans, and these rights are the SAME for all people.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, it means you recognize that while they are equal to you, they are also different from you, and since they are different they should be treated differently (yet still with respect obviously).

Ah. Maybe since members of different groups are equal but different, they should get special facilities designed for these groups? Shall we call this "Some groups are more equal?" Or maybe "separate but equal?"

Again: Because everyone is different, treating them with equal respect requires treating them differently. This is not complicated.

People are different as individuals. They must be judged and treated accordingly as INDIVIDUALS. To treat them differently because of their group membership is to treat them unequally, even if you hop up and down and chant the mantra "equally!" forever.

[inverarity.livejournal.com]

I'm sure that members of persecuted groups appreciate your wise words about how they just need to suck it up and grow thicker skins, because surely their life experience hasn't taught them that. But that's not really the point. It's all well and good to say "Everyone should be civil as a matter of principle," and as a general rule, sure, it's usually more productive to use polite language even when arguing with people you think are vile and batshit insane, for the sake of making yourself look more reasonable to third parties, if nothing else.

But, let's take, oh, John Derbyshire's (http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire#axzz1rJPlABLB) recent rant, which was so screamingly racist that the National Review promptly distanced themselves from him, and you have to practically be wearing a white hood and burning crosses before the National Review will call a white man a racist.

But Derbyshire was very civil and used perfectly polite language in explaining that black people are violent, dangerous, and subhuman.

So according to you, if someone were to write a response in which they call Derbyshire a racist piece of shit while tearing into his argument, that person would be morally in the wrong because calling Derbyshire a racist piece of shit is rude, and Derbyshire wasn't rude.

Note that I'm not talking about whether calling him a racist piece of shit is a great rhetorical strategy - it probably isn't. But if someone expresses some truly vile opinions, and someone else uses intemperate language in response, and people then refuse to listen to the response because "You're using nasty language", that's the kind of bullshit the "tone argument" addresses.

[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]

I never suggested or implied that you argued like this so I don't understand where this post is coming from.

I agree that if all you say is "Shut the fuck up," you've failed to properly argue. But if you say "Shut the fuck up, and here's why," and you proceed to list the reasons your conversational interlocutor is stupid and/or an asshole, then you might be being rude but you're still arguing. In those circumstances, I'm suggesting that it's still bad for a white man to use that phrasing against a woman because of the (long, long) history at work. It's not bad in the same way for a man to use it against a man or a woman to use it.