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 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.

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.

[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.

[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.