So Cruelly Unappreciated
The Guardian is attempting to convince readers that its columnists – those heroic truth-to-power-speakers – are, unlike writers for any other national paper, continually besieged by an ungrateful rabble, and that an alleged avalanche of sexist, racist readers’ comments proves how righteous and heroic said columnists are in their truth-to-power speaking. Amid this tale of adversity and woe, we find the following, by columnist Jessica Valenti:
Imagine going to work every day and walking through a gauntlet of 100 people saying “You’re stupid,” “You’re terrible,” “You suck,” “I can’t believe you get paid for this.” It’s a terrible way to go to work.
As many readers will know, Ms Valenti is famed for her ability to mouth mutually dissonant ideas on a regular basis, thus attracting the mockery that so offends her, and while construing double standards as the pinnacle of righteousness. As, for instance, when invading the privacy of a random male commuter on the Tube by snooping at the contents of his phone, apparently at length, and then condemning his “passive sexism.” Apparently Ms Valenti’s fellow passenger wasn’t reading enough tweets by women and was therefore to be denounced in the pages of a national newspaper. Ms Valenti went on to assert, via Twitter, that on the Tube women have “no expectation of privacy” because they’re seen as “public property.” Unlike male passengers who find themselves sitting next to a nosey Guardian columnist who’s desperate for something to bitch about in the name of feminism.
And this is the same Jessica Valenti who insists that feminists such as herself “absolutely, without a doubt, do not hate men,” before dismissing even the concept of misandry, which she frames in scare quotes, and adding, immediately, “but so what if we did?” And Ms Valenti says this while sharing photos of herself exulting in the sorrows of male readers, and while urging her fellow feminists to buy fashion items that depict men being stabbed for the sin of being romantic. And of course while complaining that some of her readers don’t find her sufficiently gifted and coherent as a cultural commentator.
One of the many traditional gender roles that feminism has made little attempt at dismantling is the one that says gentlemen must watch what they say when there are ladies present. Criticising or contradicting a woman in public is still, after however many decades of feminism, an unforgivable social faux pas. Criticising or contradicting a man in public has never been, because men are expected to be able to take it.
If a man writes something so idiotic it gets universally ridiculed below the line, like, say, Peter Jones’ classic about the meerkats in the insurance ads being racist, he never writes for the Guardian again and nobody feels the slightest bit sorry for him, quite rightly. But treating women equally to men on the impeccably feminist Guardian will simply not be tolerated.
And it goes way beyond the Guardian. The sainted Anita Sarkeesian appeared before the UN to talk about “cyber-violence”, and complained about being told “you’re a liar” and “you suck”. I very much doubt what was done to Tim Hunt was even mentioned.
What amuses me most, as usual, are the pearl-clutching comments from many, mostly HR types.
Indeed, great link! I’d not seen that.
In case you haven’t snorted and chuckled at it yet, Ace brings the quality snark:
It’s time to restart the draft, whether we need these assholes or not. Of course we don’t need them. They would be useless in the field. I’m not even suggesting giving them real weapons.
Just give them some fucking sticks and drop them into Syria.
Time to toughen up, Buttercups. Time to learn that the world is hard and has no room for the weak and stupid.
Ok, so maybe it’s a little strong.
The spam filter is being jittery again. If anyone has trouble with comments not appearing, email me and I’ll shake them free.
Hoffer’s True Believers explains a lot of the nonsense that’s going on today. And it was written over a decade before I was born!
Try this quote. There are more at the link above, but I recommend reading the book itself:
“The quality of ideas seems to play a minor role in mass movement leadership. What counts is the arrogant gesture, the complete disregard of the opinion of others, the singlehanded defiance of the world.”
― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements
“[1 of 6] To see if men and women were treated differently by commenters, we began by classifying the authors of the articles by gender.”
Gigglesnort
I wonder how many of their authors fainted straight away when that decision was made.
Meanwhile back at the sanitarium, adultism rears its ugly head.
Later that same day…
The bastards ! Someone with more experience and knowledge thinking they know more.
Meanwhile, down the hall…
Everyone of these nitwits generating solutions in search of a problem at Everyday Feminism needs to be in a home for the terminally confused, and their computers connected to nothing so that that cannot harm themselves or others.
To see if men and women were treated differently by commenters, we began by classifying the authors of the articles by gender.
Apparently it’s beyond the scope of their imaginations to consider the possibility that, as groups, male and female Guardian pundits may tend towards differing subject matter, as is in fact the case, with women (and minorities of either sex) being more likely to regurgitate fatuous identity politics, and thus attract ridicule.
From that EF link:
“I vividly remember the way the bookstore employee warily looked over her glasses at me.
Honey, you’re way too young for this book.
Seventeen years old and holding a copy of “She’s Come Undone” in my hands, I gave the employee a stony glare back.
What exactly is it you think you know about my life?
She knew that she was an adult, and I was a young person. And that was all she needed to know”.
Now, I haven’t read the book in question; however, I have just read the synopsis, noted that it was an Oprah Book Club choice and checked out some contemporaneous reviews, and that was all I needed to know.
And that’s how I came to imagine what the bookshop assistant was really thinking:
Oh honey- don’t waste your money on that pile of horseshit.
Apparently it’s beyond the scope of their imaginations to consider the possibility that, as groups, male and female Guardian pundits may tend towards differing subject matter…
Even to consider that would be misogynistic mansplaining, or something. Thoughtcrime, regardless.
“Apparently it’s beyond the scope of their imaginations to consider the possibility that…”
… or that we are vastly more protective of women’s feelings than men’s, and so moderators will likely moderate responses to an article written by a woman more proactively than one written by a man. If you’re using the number of comments moderated as an indicator of who’s getting the most abuse, that’s going to to skew it.
or that we are vastly more protective of women’s feelings than men’s
That too. The methodology is so flawed, and the conclusions to be arrived at so clearly predetermined, I doubt actual thinking played much part.
“Imagine going to work every day and walking through a gauntlet of 100 people saying ‘You’re stupid,’ ‘You’re terrible,’ ‘You suck,’…”
I’m very glad she’s agreed with Mrs Thatcher about Fly picketing.
“classifying the authors of the articles by gender”
How sexist!
And here’s the latest offering from Valenti
Valenti complains that she has the most moderated comments of any Guardian writer, and says she shouldn’t have to put up with this sort of thing.
As I mentioned above, moderation on The Guardian is actually quite good… except for articles on feminism, where the moderation can be extraordinarily aggressive. Perfectly polite and well-thought-out comments get removed by the hundreds because they have the wrong viewpoint.
Valenti, or course, is oblivious to this. If comments were removed well then they just must have been abusive.
Valenti, or course, is oblivious to this.
And so much else.
Predictably, Ms Valenti makes no attempt to fathom whether the degree of reader hostility corresponds with any particular type of idiocy or identitarian obnoxiousness being published by the Guardian; she merely notes that the targets are often “women or people of colour.” (The assumption being that no female or minority Guardian contributor could possibly write such offensive bollocks that quite a few people feel obliged to reply in an equally insulting way. See, for example, Aisha Mirza and Joseph Harker, upthread.)
Also predictable is her repeated and rather sly blurring of “rape threats” with “snide remarks” and even – horror! – “disdain,” as if little distinction should be made between actionable behaviour and expressions of ridicule. In terms of her calibre as a thinker, it doesn’t bode well. Nor does her claim that unflattering reader feedback in general – including, presumably, those expressions of disdain – constitutes a “workplace harassment issue.” In fact, it helps explain why Ms Valenti is a common object of mockery.
[ Added: ]
It’s rather like how Laurie Penny repeatedly frames disdain for her personally – as a self-styled communist and radical feminist who says she wants to destroy the family unit and topple capitalism – with a hatred of womankind. As if she were the glorious embodiment of half the planet’s population and that therefore a reluctance to take her seriously were in and of itself proof of a seething misogyny. Maybe Laurie should ponder why it is that other, much more talented female writers – say, Heather Mac Donald – aren’t mocked on a daily basis for what they say and write.
“classifying the authors of the articles by gender”
How sexist!
Shouldn’t that be “genderist”?
David:
The striking thing about Valenti and other feminists at The Guardian is the trivialities that they wallow in. They will go on for ages about how stores sell basically the same razors for women as for men, just pink-coloured and 10% more expensive. This, apparently, is the very heart and soul of oppression.
It is particularly perverse given that feminism is desperately needed today. Women are treated like chattel in many Islamic countries. Rape and slavery are tactics of war in equatorial Africa. Honour killings are still customary in parts of India and Pakistan. Even in England, they uncovered a massive prostitution ring in Rochdale involving rape and underage girls.
But you will seldom hear from Valenti on these critical subjects. Her silence betrays the very people she professes to defend, choosing instead to write on inane first world problems. And when readers correctly criticize her for this, she claims she’s the victims.
The striking thing about Valenti and other feminists at The Guardian is the trivialities that they wallow in… And when readers correctly criticize her for this, she claims she’s the victim.
I doubt it’s occurred to Ms Valenti that much of the animosity and ridicule she bemoans arises because she and her peers seem, for want of a better term, morally decadent. There’s an absurd, often grotesque failure of moral proportion, and with it a level of self-involvement that approaches narcissism. Set against real oppression, real patriarchy – easily found overseas – their preoccupation with trivial or entirely imaginary slights – from “sweat shaming” to the alleged politics of toddler excrement – arouse a kind of disgust.
“They will go on for ages about how stores sell basically the same razors for women as for men, just pink-coloured and 10% more expensive”
If that were the case, smart women would merely buy the “men’s razors” saving 10%. If enough women do this then the pink razors will not net a profit and won’t stay in the market.
@ Lovernios X
If that were the case, smart women would merely buy the “men’s razors” saving 10%. If enough women do this then the pink razors will not net a profit and won’t stay in the market.
Damn you and your logic and knowledge of economics. Damn you to hell!
[Smiley Thing]
Researchers have apparently shown that women are on average less price-sensitive than men, and in particular will pay more for reassuring brands and packaging.
The solution, you would think, would be to make women better and more informed consumers. Quit reading Cosmo and start reading Consumer Report.
The Bubbafly Effect
Actually moderation at The Guardian is pretty good. It generally keeps things passably civil.
Except for articles on feminism.
What about Islamism? The mods delete like crazy on threads about islamism. So critical of articles about islamism have many commenters become that the Guardian announced it would not be opening many to comments in the future.
Banner:
They used to delete like crazy on threads about Islam. For example, you could not say something like “Islamic fundamentalism is the greatest threat to global security today.” I know because I tried a few times.
But they’ve loosened up lately, perhaps because of the terrorist attacks in France and Belgium. That may have been enough to penetrate even The Guardian’s thick noggin.
You may be right about having fewer Islamic articles allowing comments, but that’s true for every kind of article. The Guardian is losing money at a ferocious rate, and I suspect they haven’t the money to moderate too many articles at once.
Who bothers to read the articles? I just read the comments.
Oh no rabbit, the mods are still very active on articles about islamism.
For instance try pointing out that the islamists in Iran turned their attention to leftists soon after they seized power.
But they have amended their strategy on islamism – as their desperate attempts to discredit “What British Muslims really Think” are proving.
I urge you to read this article on the Guardian in GQ magazine, it is remarkable
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-rupert-murdoch
Basically, they are losing £50 million a year, the money they made from selling publishing titles expecting it to keep them afloat eternally is on its way to being wiped out due to their profligacy. Its a delightful read! The whole newspaper is loaded with hubris and arrogance unbounded. They live in a bubble disconnected from reality, they live a life of disdain for the masses, insulated by their money, but even that is not going to last long.
They’re not entirely out of touch with reality – hence why they’re so desperate to reshape reality to suit their worldview.
Their attempts to discredit the Phillips documentary are quite bizarre.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/14/what-british-muslims-really-think-about-channel-4s-show
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/15/channel-4-islamophobic-bandwagon-british-muslims
The second link contains this gem:
When I agreed to be interviewed by Trevor Phillips and his team for this production, my aim was to refute the bizarre and divisive survey the documentary was built around.
So he agreed to be interviewed in order to discredit a survey despite presumably being unfamiliar with its findings.
BTL is revealing too – hordes of Guardianista dipshits seriously complaining that if the poll is supposed to be representative they should have been contacted.
I’ve noticed that a lot of people on Harry’s Place have noted that the trend in BTL commenting has been towards increased criticism of the Guardian. Hardly surprising that the likes of idiots such as Valenti are trying to imply that the thousands upon of thousands of comments deleted from their mediocre articles are abusive and/or threatening.
I’m not sure when it happened but at a certain points the Guardian readers reached tipping point and became overwhelmingly hostile to them on issues around Islam. I believe this new policy for comments was created to snuff that out.