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

[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.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

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

Yes, I agree that "to some extent" women and minorities are still oppressed.

No, I do not agree that I "benefit directly from that oppression." That formulation implies a limited social pie which cannot grow or have its rate of growth affected under any circumstances. The relevance of this here is that to the degree that there is still irrational prejudice against any groups in society, this shrinks the rate of growth. I would benefit the most from a society in which the minimum possible irrational prejudice existed.

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.

"Affirmative action" is highly relevant to the issue, since it shows that whites and males can suffer racial and sexual oppression, rather than being barred from such oppression by their magic "privileges." Furthermore, not all of the direct victims of "affirmative action" are white or male. To wit:

I am very personally aware of the effects of such quotas because my mother suffered from such a quota. Not because she was white or female -- because she was Jewish -- in the 1940's, Columbia University practiced "affirmative action" against Jews. Because Jews tended to have higher than average marks, colleges in that day set maximum quotas of Jewish students they would accept. Today, we directly oppress East Asians in the exact same manner, despite the fact that they are "persons of color" in the (absurd) PC parlance.

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.

Whites, East Asians and males are apparently not "anyone" in this context. Or do they deserve to be selected against because of the sins of their ancestors? Btw, of what did these consist in the case of the East Asians against whom we today select? Are we getting revenge for Pearl Harbor? The Korean War? The Mongol invasion of Europe? Inquiring minds want to know ...

Not as much as I don't feel like debating Trayvon Martin's murder, but still.

You directly asked me a question about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, otherwise I would have said nothing about it as it was not very relevant to the issue at hand.

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.

Women being incapable of insulting men right back because what, the Privilege Police will come arrest them for Violation of Male Privilege? (Incidentally, if the host cares to let my Woman of Color friend on this post, you'll probably be shocked on this topic) :)

"Rape threats" are not only immoral and illogical but actually illegal, which suggests several obvious remedies.

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.

I'm suggesting a solution which is actually within the power of each individual woman to achieve and does not require generations of social change. In other words, a practical solution, while your solution essentially allows you to feel moral while it does nothing to help the women involved -- since even if you are extra special super duper nice to every mammalian life form with an "XX" sex chromosome pair, the female will still eventually encounter some male who is not nice at all -- and be utterly unprepared to fight back.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

I would benefit the most from a society in which the minimum possible irrational prejudice existed.

I highly doubt that. What if the irrational prejudice was "Jordan179 is awesome and deserves to get anything he wants"?

"Affirmative action" is highly relevant to the issue, since it shows that whites and males can suffer racial and sexual oppression,

No it doesn't.

Because Jews tended to have higher than average marks, colleges in that day set maximum quotas of Jewish students they would accept.

Quotas are a bad idea, I agree.

Today, we directly oppress East Asians in the exact same manner, despite the fact that they are "persons of color" in the (absurd) PC parlance.

First of all, recognizing the fact that you have certain advantages over other groups, and so compensating those groups for their disadvantages, is not oppression. (Asians are oppressed in modern America in a number of ways, but academic admissions does not tend to be one of them.)

Second of all, saying things like "absurd PC parlance" and putting persons of color in square-quotes really does not help your argument.

Or do they deserve to be selected against because of the sins of their ancestors?

Well, kind of. Because of the sins of our ancestors, we have many advantages that blacks, latinos, etc. do not. As such, we have an unfair advantage when it comes to academic admissions and job applications (read this article if you haven't yet).

Asians, for various sociohistorical reasons, do not suffer from this disadvantage when it comes to academic admissions. In many other areas they do however suffer racism (including in academia itself of course; just not in the admissions process for the most part). Admittedly I could be wrong about this--I don't know a lot about this topic--so I may be making a fool out of myself on this point.

You directly asked me a question about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, otherwise I would have said nothing about it as it was not very relevant to the issue at hand.

I didn't expect you to turn around and defend Zimmerman. Maybe I should've.

Women being incapable of insulting men right back because what, the Privilege Police will come arrest them for Violation of Male Privilege?

Nice strawman. If they do, that will only be taken as more evidence that they are a "bitch" and so on some level deserve to be shouted down.

"Rape threats" are not only immoral and illogical but actually illegal,

And that makes so much of a difference when it comes to anonymous comments! No, wait...

I'm suggesting a solution which is actually within the power of each individual woman to achieve and does not require generations of social change.

What you are suggesting is not a solution.

Let me go through this very slowly. Plenty of women already have thick skin. As a matter of fact, you suggesting that the major issue here is that women are too sensitive not only displays in bright, shining lights your male privilege, but also is fairly sexist in and of itself.

It does not matter how thick skin women might have. What matters is that they are forced to have thick skin when men are not. I'm sorry, I don't care how immune to criticism you might be, rape threats and insults on the level of "Shut up you fucking bitch" are never just going to roll off your skin like water. Mainly because, as Valente (I believe) points out, this shit happens in meatspace as well.

Women do not need Jordan179 to explain to them why they must Fight Back. They know that already. The only real solution we have is social change. Yes, this takes decades, and yes, it's outside the power of individual women. It's fucking difficult. If you really cared about ending sexism, you'd help out with the project instead of taking potshots from the (white male privileged) stands.