We, women, xx chromosome ones, seem to have two choices; complain endlessly about how unfair the world is, insisting on our universal victimhood, or grasp the nettle and get on with competing with men fair and square, if that is what we want to do.
It’s worth remembering that both options are a relatively new phenomenon, and consider the likelihood of your success in relation to history, biology and economics, before you choose.
There is another way, I think, which is to avoid anarchic playgrounds like twitter for a start, use your time in more useful and creative pursuits. And maybe don’t expect so much from men and so little from women.
I agree with you. There is that popular little quip that you probably know: “Don’t wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it.” Why some men hurl abuse at women on (or off) line bemuses me. Not because I am more gallant than the average, but because I am genetically programmed to enjoy women’s company. Some men have a screw loose.
And, If a woman gets no pleasure from being on Twitter, which is where the loose-screwed lurk, why go there? It isn’t compulsory.
I have never held a twitter account but I still manage to communicate.
I don’t use Twitter, but from stories like this one, it seems to be a platform where emotionally immature people go to humble brag, whine, or indulge their base cruelty. Also, women and men shouldn’t compete (see that big guy in the girl’s bathing suit for a perfect illustration of why not); better they cooperate, work together, and appreciate each other’s strengths. Crying “misogyny” when one’s childish plea for attention is ignored or mocked reminds me of the robbery scene in Blackadder the Third, when the father tells the drama queen daughter to “shut up, you pregnant junkie f*gh*g!”
Malvin Marombedza
1 year ago
I often wonder were people get this idea that every avenue of life must be a smooth ride without bumps whatsoever. There are nasty people online, nasty people in real life too. Its okay to be idealistic, but the world as is does not care about your idealism. Its only objective is to beat you up until it forces you onto your knees. By God it will, if you let it. Morally wrong? Absolutely. But there is nothing you can do about it. If Twitter trolls hound you constantly, get off it or suck it up. Don’t waste valuable editorial space moaning about it.
People tend to be nastier on the internet than in real life, especially toward strangers because they’re not at risk of taking a beating. If you don’t want something nasty said to you, don’t post… at all.
Well yes. But I also feel there’s something inherently stress-inducing about controlling a vehicle at speeds the human brain is not naturally designed to navigate.
Hmmm, yes I suppose you’re right, seeing as there’s evidently a similar mechanism with social media. Thanks for having the good grace not to call me a total thickie.
You’ve reminded me of an old joke:
” I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming, like his passengers”
The link is a bit tenuous.
I don’t understand it either, and I’m an angry driver . It really bothers me and I’m trying to work on it, for the sake of my own health and also to stay out of trouble. I don’t think it’s anonymity but lack of control. I’m not an angry pedestrian! I often detour off the arterial roads into residential neighborhoods, even though it will take me longer to get to my destination, just so I can drive down a few quiet streets without anyone in my way.
It seems to get worse the older I get, because the less time I have left to live the more sensitive I feel about having my time wasted. That’s my only theory; if I had the great Jordan Peterson in front of me, I’d ask him to explain why I’m an angry driver. One of the things I’ve always envied about the super rich is that they have other people to drive them around, while they occupy themselves with more worthwhile things.
Not necessarily, but if we’re all to be persistently moderated to protect sensitive people from hurt feels, I would rather they stayed off. The fact that journalists now trawl social media looking for “offence” stories to peddle as news is tedious. If you don’t want trolls commenting on your new baby or hair do don’t share it to the public!
Drahcir Nevarc
1 year ago
“Jankowicz supplies a whole toolkit of ideas for protection … Be intersectional.”
You would have thought that of all people Kate Clanchy would by now have at least some grasp of the sheer undiluted vileness of woke.
Following a recent Unherd article by Kate Clanchy, I read her book. Entirely lefty in tone, and with typically left inconsistencies (streaming in schools a practical necessity, grammar schools bad) it nevertheless conveys an impression of a genuinely warm and intelligent person. Perhaps that’s why this article irritated me more than most.
Everybody foolish enough to be on Twitter is at risk from trolling. It is not a gendered issue, it is not misogynist, it’s just cowards venting their frustration anonymously and indiscriminately.
If there is any gender issue at all, it’s that social exclusion is the primary weapon of intra female violence. Women are certainly very well represented in the troll community.
I would be interested to see quantifiable data that shows how much more often women are abused online. I hear it asserted over and over how much worse it is for women. Perhaps men just deal with it better or don’t complain about it as much.
It would also be interesting to see the data demonstrating which gender contributes most of the “abusive content” – and in what proportion it’s aimed at the same gender as the contributor.
Unfortunately, the absence of double-blind peer reviewed studies in these areas renders most of these articles largely uninformative.
I think this is probably correct, in that (on average) women can often be more easily upset, and can be more liable to take things personally.
For example – switching to comedy, as a relief from online abuse – it is usual for a man seeing a male character being made to look ridiculous, not to be hurt, but to laugh.
However, when a woman sees a ridiculous portrayal of a woman, she may get upset because the figure is being made fun of (i) for being a woman, and further this is perceived as (ii) a general attack on all women, and by extension (iii) a personal attack on that individual woman viewer.
I knew a highly intelligent woman who couldn’t bear Monty Python because of its disrespectful attitude to women. And there was me thinking it was mostly sending up pompous male figures of authority such as policemen, army officers, MPs, civil servants, bishops, judges, headmasters, and so on.
I don’t think it’s so much that women don’t have a sense of humour and more that feminists don’t have a sense of humour which is why they make easy targets for trolls. Women frequently have low self esteem and so can be sensitive to personal attacks on their appearance and I while I’ve never personally received a death threat or rape threat, I can’t imagine seeing the funny side to that. However I would certainly argue that women can be just as vicious as men and men probably receive as much online abuse as women because I don’t think abuse is a gendered issue.
* again waiting for approval, it’s the word gender again, isn’t it? Last time I checked it wasn’t a swear word nor a vulgarity!
I don’t disagree with with what you say, but just to reiterate my specific point.
I think (some) women can (sometimes) react to an unflattering portrayal or criticism of another woman in specific ways:
One is to assume that the criticism is directed at that other woman because she is a woman (not, for example because she might merit criticism or is actually doing something deserving ridicule).
Second, that the motive for this is malicious (men are so nasty to women, etc, etc).
Third, that this magically translates into a personal attack on the woman observer (over and above the original subject).
(So the above wouldn’t apply to your example of a personal attack on that woman’s appearance, because it actually would be directed at her as an individual.)
Generally, I do not think that men tend to react in the way I have described above. In short, they are much less likely to take it personally or as a generalised attack on men.
Final note: I deliberately chose comedy in order to steer away from such matters as the threats which you describe.
I’m talking about comedy, and suddenly the narrative escalates to threats amounting to criminal offences carrying penalties up to life imprisonment. Which rather illustrates my point: taking things more seriously than is entirely warranted.
I got your point and just went on a little tangent of my own about women and social media. Unfortunately it’s the humourless man fearers/haters that tend to be the most vocal and the rest of us get tarred with the same brush. As a man I’m sure you understand what that’s like.
*why does this need approval? Surely not the word “women”?
My thoughts too. I recall getting into online political debates when the internet first established and I was totally flamed by irrational extremists who dominated those echo chambers.
I learned my lesson and dropped out. It was nothing to do with being male, just the early evidence of how online anonymity encourages extremist views.
R Wright
1 year ago
“Games designer Brianna Wu was driven from her home during an online campaign against sexism in her industry.”
Utterly incorrect. What a despicably false way to characterise that situation. I won’t bother reading the rest.
This article is supposed to be about abuse of women on the internet.
Go do your homework and come back with a useful reply.
Last edited 1 year ago by Derek Smith
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago
Personally I would like to see fewer articles about how something affects “women” when what is being complained about affects both sexes even if it is perceived to affect women more. If both men and women can be induced to feel they have a stake in a solution to whatever the problem is something might be done rather it just being regarded as some woman’s problem.
That said the potential solution to the problem outlined in this article touted by the government is one where I stand behind Kathleen Stock’s criticism set out in her article of yesterday on Unherd. My response to rubbish on twitter is to post here rather than twitter.
Tom Scott
1 year ago
I’ve never used Twitter and never missed it.
Life is too short to waste it on such things.
Twitter is too short to say anything worth reading.
Last edited 1 year ago by Jon Hawksley
Madeleine Jones
1 year ago
Twitter is what you make of it. You can have an anon account with a frog picture. Or you can have a more public facing account. After all, what you tweet and who you follow is your choice. That’s my rule on Twitter. I’m also reminded of Helen Dale’s Twitter feed, which is pretty wholesome with some minor political / historical remarks. She handles situations gracefully. My point is: it’s very possible to be a woman and enjoy Twitter for what it is.
I think much of the pain comes from putting on a ‘public relations’ mask on what is meant to be a casual, sort of silly environment.
I agree that much abuse that might perhaps be upsetting does not render you unsafe but threats of death or rape clearly come into a different category and should be reported and followed up by the police in all cases. News of a few posters of this sort being imprisoned might at least drastically reduce this sort of threat being circulated.
William Shaw
1 year ago
The solution to all of this is simple… stop using social media.
But the complainers and self-appointed victims don’t want to do they, because then they’d have nothing to write about.
jonathan carter-meggs
1 year ago
Manners and politeness were a necessary invention to help manage public discourse. The rules were widely accepted and universally understood. Real face to face meetings meant that rude people were identified, shunned, or sanctioned. Twitter….no manners no politeness, annonymity all mean the very worst people can spit hatred with impunity. It seems all of this anger was just under the surface and once released it multiplies easily. What we have lost? What have we created? How much worse can it get, because we know it will.
We, women, xx chromosome ones, seem to have two choices; complain endlessly about how unfair the world is, insisting on our universal victimhood, or grasp the nettle and get on with competing with men fair and square, if that is what we want to do.
It’s worth remembering that both options are a relatively new phenomenon, and consider the likelihood of your success in relation to history, biology and economics, before you choose.
There is another way, I think, which is to avoid anarchic playgrounds like twitter for a start, use your time in more useful and creative pursuits. And maybe don’t expect so much from men and so little from women.
I agree with you. There is that popular little quip that you probably know: “Don’t wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig enjoys it.” Why some men hurl abuse at women on (or off) line bemuses me. Not because I am more gallant than the average, but because I am genetically programmed to enjoy women’s company. Some men have a screw loose.
And, If a woman gets no pleasure from being on Twitter, which is where the loose-screwed lurk, why go there? It isn’t compulsory.
I have never held a twitter account but I still manage to communicate.
I don’t use Twitter, but from stories like this one, it seems to be a platform where emotionally immature people go to humble brag, whine, or indulge their base cruelty. Also, women and men shouldn’t compete (see that big guy in the girl’s bathing suit for a perfect illustration of why not); better they cooperate, work together, and appreciate each other’s strengths. Crying “misogyny” when one’s childish plea for attention is ignored or mocked reminds me of the robbery scene in Blackadder the Third, when the father tells the drama queen daughter to “shut up, you pregnant junkie f*gh*g!”
I often wonder were people get this idea that every avenue of life must be a smooth ride without bumps whatsoever. There are nasty people online, nasty people in real life too. Its okay to be idealistic, but the world as is does not care about your idealism. Its only objective is to beat you up until it forces you onto your knees. By God it will, if you let it. Morally wrong? Absolutely. But there is nothing you can do about it. If Twitter trolls hound you constantly, get off it or suck it up. Don’t waste valuable editorial space moaning about it.
People tend to be nastier on the internet than in real life, especially toward strangers because they’re not at risk of taking a beating. If you don’t want something nasty said to you, don’t post… at all.
Similarly, the person who gives you the finger behind the wheel of her car will apologize profusely if she bumps carts with you at the supermarket.
I’ve never really understood why people get so angry behind the wheel.
She just explained it Drahcir – anonymity/remoteness (in a vehicle) trigger more extreme reactions.
Well yes. But I also feel there’s something inherently stress-inducing about controlling a vehicle at speeds the human brain is not naturally designed to navigate.
Hmmm, yes I suppose you’re right, seeing as there’s evidently a similar mechanism with social media. Thanks for having the good grace not to call me a total thickie.
You’ve reminded me of an old joke:
” I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather. Not screaming, like his passengers”
The link is a bit tenuous.
Haha, good one!
I don’t understand it either, and I’m an angry driver . It really bothers me and I’m trying to work on it, for the sake of my own health and also to stay out of trouble. I don’t think it’s anonymity but lack of control. I’m not an angry pedestrian! I often detour off the arterial roads into residential neighborhoods, even though it will take me longer to get to my destination, just so I can drive down a few quiet streets without anyone in my way.
It seems to get worse the older I get, because the less time I have left to live the more sensitive I feel about having my time wasted. That’s my only theory; if I had the great Jordan Peterson in front of me, I’d ask him to explain why I’m an angry driver. One of the things I’ve always envied about the super rich is that they have other people to drive them around, while they occupy themselves with more worthwhile things.
This solution leaves the influence (unfortunately that is what social media has perversely) in the hands of hate filled morons.
Not necessarily, but if we’re all to be persistently moderated to protect sensitive people from hurt feels, I would rather they stayed off. The fact that journalists now trawl social media looking for “offence” stories to peddle as news is tedious. If you don’t want trolls commenting on your new baby or hair do don’t share it to the public!
“Jankowicz supplies a whole toolkit of ideas for protection … Be intersectional.”
You would have thought that of all people Kate Clanchy would by now have at least some grasp of the sheer undiluted vileness of woke.
Real intersectionality has never been tried!
Haha!
Following a recent Unherd article by Kate Clanchy, I read her book. Entirely lefty in tone, and with typically left inconsistencies (streaming in schools a practical necessity, grammar schools bad) it nevertheless conveys an impression of a genuinely warm and intelligent person. Perhaps that’s why this article irritated me more than most.
Everybody foolish enough to be on Twitter is at risk from trolling. It is not a gendered issue, it is not misogynist, it’s just cowards venting their frustration anonymously and indiscriminately.
If there is any gender issue at all, it’s that social exclusion is the primary weapon of intra female violence. Women are certainly very well represented in the troll community.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/news/a43626/women-half-online-trolls/
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/middle-aged-women-worst-online-trolls-demographic-i-can-understand-why-1104024
I would be interested to see quantifiable data that shows how much more often women are abused online. I hear it asserted over and over how much worse it is for women. Perhaps men just deal with it better or don’t complain about it as much.
It would also be interesting to see the data demonstrating which gender contributes most of the “abusive content” – and in what proportion it’s aimed at the same gender as the contributor.
Unfortunately, the absence of double-blind peer reviewed studies in these areas renders most of these articles largely uninformative.
The the way gender is being bandied about as being fluid, chances are the data wouldn’t be accurate anyway.
*waiting for approval? Is it because the word gender is now a trigger word?
I think this is probably correct, in that (on average) women can often be more easily upset, and can be more liable to take things personally.
For example – switching to comedy, as a relief from online abuse – it is usual for a man seeing a male character being made to look ridiculous, not to be hurt, but to laugh.
However, when a woman sees a ridiculous portrayal of a woman, she may get upset because the figure is being made fun of (i) for being a woman, and further this is perceived as (ii) a general attack on all women, and by extension (iii) a personal attack on that individual woman viewer.
I knew a highly intelligent woman who couldn’t bear Monty Python because of its disrespectful attitude to women. And there was me thinking it was mostly sending up pompous male figures of authority such as policemen, army officers, MPs, civil servants, bishops, judges, headmasters, and so on.
A vile, cowardly attack on all men? Or comedy?
I don’t think it’s so much that women don’t have a sense of humour and more that feminists don’t have a sense of humour which is why they make easy targets for trolls. Women frequently have low self esteem and so can be sensitive to personal attacks on their appearance and I while I’ve never personally received a death threat or rape threat, I can’t imagine seeing the funny side to that. However I would certainly argue that women can be just as vicious as men and men probably receive as much online abuse as women because I don’t think abuse is a gendered issue.
* again waiting for approval, it’s the word gender again, isn’t it? Last time I checked it wasn’t a swear word nor a vulgarity!
I don’t disagree with with what you say, but just to reiterate my specific point.
I think (some) women can (sometimes) react to an unflattering portrayal or criticism of another woman in specific ways:
(So the above wouldn’t apply to your example of a personal attack on that woman’s appearance, because it actually would be directed at her as an individual.)
Generally, I do not think that men tend to react in the way I have described above. In short, they are much less likely to take it personally or as a generalised attack on men.
Final note: I deliberately chose comedy in order to steer away from such matters as the threats which you describe.
I’m talking about comedy, and suddenly the narrative escalates to threats amounting to criminal offences carrying penalties up to life imprisonment. Which rather illustrates my point: taking things more seriously than is entirely warranted.
I got your point and just went on a little tangent of my own about women and social media. Unfortunately it’s the humourless man fearers/haters that tend to be the most vocal and the rest of us get tarred with the same brush. As a man I’m sure you understand what that’s like.
*why does this need approval? Surely not the word “women”?
Try “birthing persons”
My thoughts too. I recall getting into online political debates when the internet first established and I was totally flamed by irrational extremists who dominated those echo chambers.
I learned my lesson and dropped out. It was nothing to do with being male, just the early evidence of how online anonymity encourages extremist views.
“Games designer Brianna Wu was driven from her home during an online campaign against sexism in her industry.”
Utterly incorrect. What a despicably false way to characterise that situation. I won’t bother reading the rest.
Brianna Wu, born John Walker Flynt, is not a woman.
‘ Games designer Brianna Wu was driven from her home during an online campaign against sexism in her industry.’
As Austin Powers would say, ‘that’s not a woman…’
Maybe I’m missing something but who and why are 11 people liking this inane post?
This article is supposed to be about abuse of women on the internet.
Go do your homework and come back with a useful reply.
Personally I would like to see fewer articles about how something affects “women” when what is being complained about affects both sexes even if it is perceived to affect women more. If both men and women can be induced to feel they have a stake in a solution to whatever the problem is something might be done rather it just being regarded as some woman’s problem.
That said the potential solution to the problem outlined in this article touted by the government is one where I stand behind Kathleen Stock’s criticism set out in her article of yesterday on Unherd. My response to rubbish on twitter is to post here rather than twitter.
I’ve never used Twitter and never missed it.
Life is too short to waste it on such things.
Twitter is too short to say anything worth reading.
Twitter is what you make of it. You can have an anon account with a frog picture. Or you can have a more public facing account. After all, what you tweet and who you follow is your choice. That’s my rule on Twitter. I’m also reminded of Helen Dale’s Twitter feed, which is pretty wholesome with some minor political / historical remarks. She handles situations gracefully. My point is: it’s very possible to be a woman and enjoy Twitter for what it is.
I think much of the pain comes from putting on a ‘public relations’ mask on what is meant to be a casual, sort of silly environment.
What value is there in lots of frog pictures with comments from lots of unknown people?
Seems rather bizarre.
Inherently dangerous? You’re sitting at a computer safe in your home. People on Twitter can be nasty, but they can’t hurt you.
I agree that much abuse that might perhaps be upsetting does not render you unsafe but threats of death or rape clearly come into a different category and should be reported and followed up by the police in all cases. News of a few posters of this sort being imprisoned might at least drastically reduce this sort of threat being circulated.
The solution to all of this is simple… stop using social media.
But the complainers and self-appointed victims don’t want to do they, because then they’d have nothing to write about.
Manners and politeness were a necessary invention to help manage public discourse. The rules were widely accepted and universally understood. Real face to face meetings meant that rude people were identified, shunned, or sanctioned. Twitter….no manners no politeness, annonymity all mean the very worst people can spit hatred with impunity. It seems all of this anger was just under the surface and once released it multiplies easily. What we have lost? What have we created? How much worse can it get, because we know it will.
We have vast swathes of people who struggle with being disagreed with and cannot debate for the life of them. I call them activists.
In case anyone missed it, Clanchy also did a wonderful interview with Freddie Sayers; an eye-opener. I hope to hear more and more from her.
If you ignore Twitter then it can’t harm you. A minority choose to interface with it and, generally, they all deserve what they get!
Does anyone acually NEED to use Tritter?
This is a genuine question, because all we ever read about are negative the results.