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]

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.

[tealterror0.livejournal.com]

Holy crap flood of comments. Would you please limit yourself to one in the future?

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.

Not just oppressive, but highly oppressive, eh? I dare you to say that to someone who's suffered actual oppression. Well, if you ever manage to get off that high horse at least.

I didn't do anything to oppress non-whites or non-males.

Well, except for arguing in this thread that their oppression doesn't matter.

I ... only ... feel ... guilty ... for ... things ... I ... do. I do not feel guilty for things that others do.

Get over yourself. I have never asked or implied that you feel guilty for your white privilege. Almost every time I've seen white privilege be brought up, you always get a white person (usually a guy) who whines about how I didn't do anything so why should I feel guilty.

It's not about feeling guilty. It's about how non-white people are still at a disadvantage vis-a-vis white people, and to not acknowledge that makes you an asshole. Whether or not you feel guilty is up to you, but you need to at least acknowledge the fact.

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.

All right. Still don't see how oppressed groups doing this will end their oppression, but whatever.

But if Mr. Able gives Mr. Baker unearned respect while demanding little in return because Baker is black, then he is also being racist.

*rolls eyes* "Unearned respect," give me a break. At the very least he earns more respect because Mr. Able has benefited throughout his life from white privilege that simultaneously harmed Mr. Baker.

If rights inhere equally in humans qua humans, then they are harder to take away.

Oh, wouldn't it be great if that were true? And you accuse me of being unrealistic...

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.

Oh my God. Not only are you equating Jim Crow with affirmative action ("milder version," nice save), but you're also implying that the only way oppression can exist is through the law. Are you for real?

Shall we call this "Some groups are more equal?" Or maybe "separate but equal?"

I repeat: Get off your fucking high horse. This is not at all what I'm talking about and you damn well know it.

To treat them differently because of their group membership is to treat them unequally,

Except their group membership is part of their individuality. So to ignore their group membership is to ignore an essential element of their identity.