inverarity (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
inverarity) wrote2012-04-08 06:52 pm
inverarity) wrote2012-04-08 06:52 pm
Confessions of a Neckbeard
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
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
_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.
no subject
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.
no subject
no subject
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.
Since wandering around drunk in Central Park is not immoral, the person in your example does not bear responsibility for being robbed. Anymore than you bear responsibility for being robbed by living in a city with a high crime rate, or walking around with a wallet.
To put it another way: They are responsible for walking around drunk. They are not responsible for being robbed.
Does that answer your question? Now please stop derailing the thread because I honestly can't see how this has anything to do with Inverarity's post.
no subject
But since most of my responses have had people running to rape even though I never brought that up I'm willing to withdraw since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive.
no subject
Um, huh? "Responsibility" is an inherently moral concept. Logic and morality are not mutually contradictory.
And you don't really answer if getting robbed means it's wrong to point out that the person walking around drunk was being dumb.
Let me put it this way: If someone comes up to you and talks about how they were robbed, and you respond by saying "Well, you shouldn't have been walking around alone at night," you're an asshole.
But since most of my responses have had people running to rape even though I never brought that up I'm willing to withdraw since this doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive.
People have been mentioning rape in their responses because this conversation began with talk about rape threats. You do not get to play coy and say "But I didn't mention it myself!" when the context is there for everyone to see.
That said, since you have consistently failed to respond to any actual substantive points, I agree this conversation has failed to go anywhere productive. So congratulations for successfully derailing this thread! You must be so proud of yourself.
no subject
But given that my original post was specifically about (among other things) rape and sexual harassment, and you went straight for the very analogy I was talking about, I am finding your wounded indignation that people are reading implications about moral culpability and sexual assault into your statements when that's totally not what you were talking about at all even a little bit to be highly suspect.