This seems to be the new PC distraction from real issues to irritate voters.

lol. ;)

Here's another news flash:

Apparently people say mean things on the internet. According to many feminists, misogyny exists not only in the real world, but on the internet as well. It's known as "VM" Virtual Misogyny, and it's devastating the nation.

Never mind health-care, the environment and global warming, your pocketbook, war and peace, rampant obesity and diabetes truly devastating American quality of life, nuclear proliferation, the housing bubble, rampant foreclosures, predatory economics and institutionalized poverty, the FED helping big lenders fleece the public, the national debt, US industrial bankruptcy, outsourcing, China, the education gap, the energy crisis, aging infrastructure and falling behind other developed nations, terrorism, corruption, political corruption, private sector corruption, the judiciary, corruption of the judiciary and the DoJ, and certainly forget about misandry, etc, etc, etc. and on and on.

Forget all that shit and drop everything. There is misogyny on the internet. Now go get all lathered up and chase your tails people. Now!

I hadn't realized credible death threats don't qualify as a "real issue".

Thanks for the enlightenment, kozmik!

Hmmm...I think I'll look to see if I can find any real problems....

*google*

Let's see...

In 2005, there were 191,670 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assaults according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

That's approximately 1 per every 1600 people.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm

In contrast, there is about 1 homicide per 20,000 people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

But violence done to women is just a distraction from "real issues".

lol. That was hilarious. Apparently "death threats" are rampant on the internet and a serious risk to women. (how do you even feel safe to post here? You must be soooo courageous.)

I was wondering what started all those problems I mentioned, and that's where I totally failed to connect the dots. They all started with misogyny, so they're all the same problem. Of course. It all makes such perfect sense!

Why nitpick at derivative issues like "war and peace" or "health-care" or "the environment" anyways? Pfft. Just go to the source of all evil: misogyny and meanness.

Why, if we could just solve that, all the other problems would fix themselves. What a brilliant revelation!

So how could we accomplish this... hmmm. maybe we could write some songs about "needing only Love" or something like that, and maybe we could experiment with chemicals that make people more happy and tranquil... possibly wear more earth tone clothing, let our hair down, avoid competitive and violent sports, and try to be less materialistic.

Most importantly, we have to really drill this into people!

Yes! I think that's it. Surely such a sweeping cultural change would usher in a new era. Many decades of prosperity, peace, and liberalism, with nary a hate monger or conservative to be found anywhere!

Death threats are rampant on the internet!! Serious Death Threats! Be very afraid!

(no really. I know you don't see any, but who you gonna believe, EJ Graf or your lying eyes?)

All of these issues are important including misogyny. Are you rational? Stop getting your shorts in a bunch.

Tom

Considering that

1) I don't have a well-trafficed, highly-visible blog
2) I don't go through comments on blog/forum sites where I expect the responses to be inane
3) I don't have the time, means, or desire to read every single comment posted on the web every day

I think I'll believe someone who can reasonably be expected to have first-hand experience of such. Because assuming everything is a conspiracy is, to be blunt, idiotic.

btw, I should add, your post is the most unsubstantiated and alarmist doodoo ever.

I don't like to use the term, because it's often applied to people on the left who are perfectly cogent and concerned about legitimate issue, but the fact remains there is a small minority of fringe people on the left who are just paranoid and alarmist "tinfoil" hats types. They wind up hurting the left far more than they help.

For example, tree campers and monkey wrenches have done far more harm to environmentalism than help. Chronically angst ridden lesbian feminists have done far more harm to feminism than help. Hippies did far more harm to liberalism than help. Etc.

I don't know why TPM has such PC but substance free authors like EJ Graf. While Josh is usually right on, he does hop on the PC bandwagon now and then. Take his stance on WMD and Iraq war for example, which was very much a PC thing on the left at the time. He usually winds up regretting it. I know it must be hard to resist, and I have to give Josh credit for being on the bleeding edge but...

One thing I like about Sy Hersh for example of a journalist who has stayed pretty relevant and maintained integrity better than most over the years, is he resisted selling out and trying to be all things to all people. I think that's the biggest lure to PC-dom and becoming a phony: trying to be all things to all people.

I think that's where a lot of expanding BLOGS go wrong. Instead of staying somewhat specialized, they try to create a salon for all things, and they invariably start publishing token authors and checking of PC boxes.

Did you miss the fact that EJ Graff was noting the LINK between online mysogyny and violent threats and things that actually happen in women's day-to-day lives??!! I find your posts offensive--no one even suggested we ignore other social problems, and to suggest that dealing with this serious social ill (violence against women) is a waste of time and that it precludes us from dealing with other issues is just dumb. But maybe you just don't think it's important that women and people of color feel safe walking down the streets or going to work.

Ah... Do you have any hard, substantiated, data you can cite? Read critically much? I could read Ann Coulter's book too if I just want to read unsubstantiated claims. Judith Miller wrote oin the NYT front page, repeatedly, that Iraq was full of WMD, and she didn't substantiate anything.

Anybody with an agenda can write a column or book, most are complete BS, and just reinforce what people want to believe without any hard data.

Regardless, what does the internet or EJ Grafs's article have to do with it? It's a complete non sequitur to lump together. May as well drag violent video games into the mix if we're going to be so totally vague.

I think we'd all admit that a certain percentage of men are violent psychopaths, and that this is a high enough percentage that it shouldn't surprise us to find them, in the thousands, on the Net. But what truly shocks me is how many para-psychopaths there are. Every time you see one of these threads there's at least one cold-hearted creep who chides us for being overly PC and attacks the victims for being too sensitive and for not being tough enough to take the heat ... "like a man."

In some ways, these para-psychopaths are scarier because at least with the real thing you can call the police, have their Internet address tracked down, and, one hopes, get them off the streets (and the Net) for a few years. The para-psychopaths, on the other hand, are beyond any solution. Some, I suppose, are educable. Most, unfortunately, will die just as cruel, ignorant and loathsome as they are today.

It's a small pleasure, but it was fun giving this thread's victim-abuser a bunch of big fat zeros.

Y'know, without agreeing with Kozmik at all, I'm just going to say that some things are simply never acceptable... ever.

There's a lot of violent mouthy trolls on the internet, and a lot of them seem all that more willing to get vile and vulgar and make threats if they have a feeling that the person on the other side isn't prepared to kick their teeth in.

The fact that they're trolling a woman brings out the worst in them. Talking about women brings out the worst in them.

A few charges and jail terms, or maybe a lot, would do a lot to civilize the bunch of them up.

The fact is that fear can be a fact of life for some people. I've seen it happen. Kids terrified of school because of gangs, old people afraid to go down the street. America is a country where the well to do live in gated communities and hire security guards for office buildings. Don't tell me that America isn't about the fear. You fuckers live and breath fear, you marinate in it.

No one makes a death threat, directly or indirectly, so they can watch themselves type. They're out there putting out that fear. They put fear in people they think are vulnerable, and that fear is there cause just once in a while, some of them follow through.

I don't think its respectful of anyone to mock women's fear, particularly when other folks are working so hard to inflict it. I particularly don't think its respectful not to take that fear seriously or say get over it, particularly when all the rest of your society seems so thoroughly fear based.

When you leave your house, Kozmik, do you lock it? Do you go for walks in urban downtowns at night? Do you get a little nervous walking past some streetwise ghetto youth hanging out? Does the building where you work have security guards? Does the apartment building where you live have security cameras? Do you live in a gated community? Are there security guards at the mall? Sounds like you're living in the lap of fear to me.

Look at it this way Kosmik. You're a guy, that entitles you to some privileges. Among these privileges is a lot more upper body strength, a lot more confidence and security. You've never had to worry about someone shoving their cock into your body against your will. You've never had to worry about being in a situation where everyone is stronger and more aggressive and less vulnerable than you. It gives a degree of security, you know what I mean? It gives you a baseline of security, a sort of permanent level of comfort.

But let me ask you something. Supposing you wound up pissing off some Hells Angels, or some big black rough looking guys. Supposing that you knew these guys had a reputation for violence, that any one of them could kick your ass, and worse, from prison, they really enjoyed shoving their cocks up their victims... sort of to make a point.

Suppose one of these guys wrote to you and said that they were going to do you. Suppose you got an anonymous email that you were dead certain was from one of these guys.

That's fear, bud.

Show a little respect.

I would recommend ignoring kozmik and carrying on the conversation as if kozmik isn't here. That will stop the wasting of a lot of time and energy and will keep the focus on this important issue.

Tom

I think that's a great piece. A lot of the coverage of Imus did fail to acknowledge his words as sexist too. And I think he brings up an important issue about using an event like this as a catalyst for public dialogue on the tough issues.

Of course, I thought we were destined to have a public discussion about race after Katrina, and that didn't happen.

It's all self referential. It's one exaggeration used to "substantiate" another. It's her bread and butter.

Really, what's the difference between an Al Sharpton and someone like EJ Graf? Not much.

When you talk to accomplished women and accomplished blacks, people who made it in fields like the sciences, business, etc, they all seem to agree: yes there is still misogyny and racism, but it has gotten better, and more than anything people need to develop a healthy attitude, keep moving forward, and try and transcend the BS.

The only people you hear constantly making the worst of things, constantly stoking angst, are people who make a living feeding off the angst. Stoking it and stoking it because it makes them viable as media figures. And what they spread isn't positive change, or smart actions, it's angst and symbolic political action that is often so self defeating it should be called political in-action by in-activists.

Take Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of HP for example. When she was successful at the top of her game, she spoke about the opportunities for women. But as soon as she was fired she wrote a book claiming it was sexism to a large degree. A lot of feminists who never cared much about her suddenly couldn't get enough of her, because she verified what they're always saying.

Was it sexism, or was it the fact she tried to completely reverse HP culture and created a backlash? She didn't make HP a kinder gentler company, she made it more ruthless and instituted massive "cost cutting" and layoffs. Previously, under the presumably "misogynistic" executives, HP was one of the most progressive companies in America. If profits were down, they didn't lay off people, everybody took a pay cut. The stock was unstable under her leadership, which will put any CEO in hot water. Now I'm not saying one strategy is economically better than the other, that's not the point.

The point is Carly Fiorina was more Margret Thatcher than Indira Gandhi, she totally went against the HP culture, and created stock instability, which would create a backlash against any CEO. Instead of dealing with that, she takes advantage of the culture war to holler "misogyny" which was just shameful, and sent the wrong message to a lot of aspiring women.

It was all for the glorification and profit of Carly Fiorina. She's not helping women, she betrayed women.

She was positive one day inspiring women to opportunities, crying misogyny and encouraging angst the next. Succeed on her merits one minute, stoke angst and sell books the next.

People like EJ Graf do the same thing. They stoke this angst and feed off it for a living.

They wind up hurting the left far more than they help...

One thing I like about Sy Hersh for example of a journalist...

I think that's where a lot of expanding BLOGS go wrong...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

His body of work here has also included zeroing out others' comments.

Only three weeks, and he's already been such a positive contributor to our blog. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Why, is that what you were attempting to accomplish in that post? I think you nailed it, with hypocrisy for the bonus!

I completely agree with you that these are serious problems in our society that need to be dealt with in a serious manner. At the beginning of your post you point out the sneering negative reaction females often get when attempting to bring these problems to light. I agree that happens and much too often. It is also true though that while true and sincere, many times the tone and approach one brings to the table can be predicted to draw that sort of reaction from many. Far too often their seems to be a weird mix of feminism with an almost victorian superiority that is quite off-putting and distracts readers/listeners from the important points that are, in fact, being made. It's just one of those realities that anyone or any group has to face up to if it wants to communicate effectively outside it's own circle of like minds. Whenever that self-righteous victorian-like tone gets rolled out many people recoil and write off the content. The same message, presented in a different way would get a very different reaction in many, if not all, cases. It's not just a problem for feminists, but liberals and lefties in general I'm afraid, often face this difficulty. You want the masses with you? Then speak to them and not down to them.

Glad you enjoy ratings abuse!

Now go vote for Nader, throw some rocks through Starbucks windows, or get the next most left-leaning radio host off the air, and really change the world... to the Conservative Right.

Heckuva job!

"a catalyst for public dialogue on the tough issues."

You mean like a "dialogue" with the broader public?

Hmm, there's the right... probably really going to take up the issue. Right.

Then there's the left, who are already PC on these kinds of things.

Then there is the middle, you know the kind of people who listened to, and like, Imus. Yea, they're probably really thanking the left and blacks now for getting him yanked. Not in any way switching over to Limbaugh and such, or becoming more hostile to race poltics. No way!

Yes, we need to ban death threats and fear itself! (especially the most fearsome "big black rough looking guys" or people who would "shove their cock into your body against your will")

Oh wait, it's already illegal to make death threats...

"Big black rough looking guys" already have it bad enough....

Rape is already illegal...

And there are standards to delineate between free speech and seriously threatening actions already. Oh right....

But none the less... BE AFRAID!!!!

Here's the line, smart guy:

There's free speech, and then there's death threats. One's acceptable, one's not.

Death threats are unacceptable because they are meant to be taken seriously on some level, and in at a small but significant portion of cases, they get acted upon.

So my view of it, is that when a death threat gets issued, even over the internet, even by a guy who is just fooling around or venting... well, it should be a matter for the cops, the guy should be charged, and he should deal with the law.

If someone complains about a death threat, I'm inclined to treat that respectfully.

And as for mocking America's culture of fear, well and fine. But I suggest that you are a recipient, a beneficiary and a participant in that culture.

I don't see too much of a difference.

EJ Graff is jumping on a bandwagon that has been overblowing this issue to stoke angst and make it into another bread and butter angst-emist issue. It's not just her, I've seen several articles on the subject and it's definitely an agenda for the "Feministing" crowd. It's just another PC "fear" distraction though. She's also one of the people who sees misogyny everywhere, and everywhere, in huge proportions.

Someone like Sharpton does the same thing to tap into the worst in people and exploit pain. Shaprpton is himself incredibly racist, and thrives in racism. He's not helping blacks.

I could go into detail, and have, but to keep this post short(er) I'll use this analogy: Call it the "OJ Simpson" test of integrity.

The OJ Simpson test: To a rational person bothering to follow the facts dispassionately, OJ was guilty as hell. Oprah for example kept quiet because the didn't want to offend her audience (and kinda sold out) but at least she didn't jump around and celebrate the verdict, and later said she was disappointed in it. "Leaders" like Sharpton were overjoyed publicly, and really made the black community appear bad once everyone came to their senses. Of course the MSM loved the "controversy" and the public ate that shit up.

A rough analogy to the "OJ Test" would be the "Carly Fiorina" test. It wasn't nearly as big a media sensation, but was similar in essence. It wasn;t sexism, she wasn't right for the company becasue she tried to change the culture too fast, laid off tons of people, made an unpopular merger, and the stock was volatile. Any CEO would be in trouble. Reasonable people saw this.

But the feministing.com crowd and those on the same wavelength as Graf, wrote things such as "Carly Fiorina finally acknowledges there's a glass ceiling." Previously they didn't like her because she spoke out about the opportunities for women, and was positive. But as soon as she was fired, and a grudge and a book to sell alleging misogyny, she was everybody's darling.

It's just sick. It's self reinforcing sickness.

We do need to end misogyny, and we need to end racism, but these hysterical fear and angst monsters aren't helping. They just get people lathered up and chasing their tails.

Did kozmo's answer satisfy you?

He obviously knows more about this topic than anyone here. And he seems so credible.

Shorter kozmo: "If I say it's stoking angst, it's stoking angst."

He IS concerned about misogyny, though.  

Dissent Protects Democracy.

hey, I just want to say I really appreciate your authoritarian commands of who should say what, your use of rating to enforce that, and your little tics like your tendency to use nicknames for people you disagree with.

Remind people of anyone? A certain beady eyed, big eared, mental midget known for bullying?

The Red Brigade has spoken!

Let me offer an idea that was put into practice on BlueOregon during the last election season: Tired of right-wing trolls who kept trying to hijack threads on the site, one commenter (followed by several others) pledged to make a contribution to Democratic candidates every time a troll sounded off.

So how about this - whenever someone like this thread's resident troll goes off again, folks who have the means could pledge to contribute $ to an organization that fights sexual and domestic violence.

Just a thought....

Listen, I have had my run-ins with koznik so have no interest in defending him, but he is making a defensible argument and does not deserve being labeled a “para-psychopath” with the clear indication that police power should be used to silence him. Attitudes like those lead to police states.

Sorry, I am going to take a stand against blatant racism no matter how unpopulat that is.

I think responding to kozmik's ad hominem attacks is a serious mistake. Do not feed the Gremlins. Your IQ will suffer.

Crablaw Weekly

Yeah, real misogyny is an important issue. Real death threats, against anyone is an important issue. Real injustice needs to be addressed.

BUT, one female blogger getting her "shorts in a bunch" because she has some rude posters and hate mail, is ridiculous. She didn't get any serious "death threats" and nobody actually stalked her, nor was she ever in any danger except in her over active imagination.

Even more ridiculous are people like Graf, who is frankly the hammer to which everything is a nail, who hangs with other hammers with an identical nail-like world view, seeing this as a major issue and evidence of misogyny we all need to be aware of.

I hate it when the left does this kind of nonsense for the same reason sane people on the right (presuming existence of course) must hate it when conservatives go bat-shit over Orange Alerts and buy duct tape and "support the troops" bumper stickers with a passion to save their lives.

You have a talent for saying nothing.

This diary is pretty feverish, and sounds very much like a woman imagining some nightmare world where men run around dangling penises or splooging all over a desk. Or, perhaps, taking one example in all of America where such a thing did happen and deeming it "astonishingly common".

Exactly. That's exactly why I dislike the EJ Graf and Al Sharpton type.

Pastries shaped like penises? People dropping their pants in the workplace and requesting sex, ejaculating on desks? That's the norm? That's anything but extremely rare? It's just crazy talk.

They're paranoids.

Both tend to bubble themselves in echo chambers where they work themselves into a frenzy.

Sharpton is a paranoid racist who feeds off racism and only makes it worse. EJ Graf is a paranoid sexist who feeds off it and only makes it worse. Their goal is to make other people as paranoid as they are.

This stuff happens all the time according to Graf, so common it's not the exception but the norm. ... But aside from paranoids, anyone who goes to an office (unlike Graf) knows that shit is just NOT allowed, nor do people, men or women, want to work in such an environment.

Listen, I have had my run-ins with koznik so have no interest in defending him

No interest at all, except as you point out you don't want to live in a police state or echo chamber. Evolution of morality for common good and all that.

I love how everybody misspells my handle who doesn't like me. Especially cscs likes to punctuate his thought provoking comments with a little nicknaming.

Shows the high character of the the Bush administration for example who constantly mispronounce the names of anyone they dislike. Real schoolyard stuff.

Golf clap. Well done kozmik took control of the thread early and never let go. He set the bait and almost everyone bit. Well played sir, well played indeed.

Really? I thought it was the other way around, and I was responding to the ridiculous claims some people made, beginning with EJ Graf.

So I guess I should ask you:

How about them penis shaped pastries? Seen many lately? Big problem for ya?

Many people ejaculated on your desk lately? Your women friends?

How about serious death threats? Got a whole lot lately?

Cause I hear it's a real big problem, quite common in fact.

Kosmic, I see no reason for the hate, these people, who through an extension of their apparent loathing of any thing you have to say resort to ratings abuse.

In fact, I just read CSCS typical quote "Dissent protects Democracy".

Evidently, he doesn't believe in dissent or opposing viewpoints.

 Others writing about ignoring or not responding to your comments.

What? Dissenting views really not welcome in your mutual admiration society?

Don't get discouraged Kosmic. I too have been a victim of ratings abuse, by those who feel I am different, and would rather, I not wake them from their dream world where everybody thinks like they do. Slapping each other on the back, "God we love you, your so much like us."

 But ostracise those who might disagree and unless they recognize them as the authority, burn them at the stake for heresy.

 For those challenged, heresy noun: any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.

ostracise: verb: avoid speaking to or dealing with verb: expel from a community or group Dissent to them attacks the staus quo.

Status quo, you know, that is Latin for "the mess we're in." Ronald Reagan

 If no one is pissed-off with you then you are dead but just haven't figured it out yet. Tom Peters

Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

Keep writing, till they take your right to speech or dissent, realizing that great men have suffered the same fate. 

 Therefore . . . , invoking the most holy name of our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Most Glorious Mother Mary, We pronounce this Our final sentence: We pronounce, judge, and declare, that you, the said

Galileo . Kosmic. . have rendered yourself vehemently suspected by this (Self appointed, self rightous, members of the TPM community, with the ability to give 0's)   Holy Office of heresy, that is, of having believed and held the doctrine (which is false and contrary to the select group of Self appointed controllers, of what is right and wrong)

Holy and Divine Scriptures, that the sun is the center of the world, and that it does not move from east to west, and that the earth does move, and is not the center of the world; 

(we don't like you disagreeing with us) also, that an opinion can be held and supported as probable, after it has been declared and finally decreed contrary to (to our right opinion)  the Holy Scripture, and, consequently, that you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated in the sacred canons and other general and particular constituents against delinquents of this description. From which it is Our pleasure that you be absolved, provided that with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, in Our presence, you abjure, curse, and detest, the said error and heresies, and every other error and heresy contrary to ( a select  few of the TPM community, who know we're always right)  the Catholic and Apostolic Church of Rome.

There is a weakness in "personal experience" articles in blogs where posters tell you things, some of which are certainly true, but give you no way to be factually comfortable with the overall message. This weakness becomes pernicious if the things you are told are actually nth hand, so that neither you nor the blogger has any way of knowing whether they are facts, urban legends, or fabrications.

Because there is no external verification, people of differing credulity and differing prejudices start out at sixes and sevens, and as we see here, things quickly degenerate.

If what is described here is "shockingly" common, there should be available to bloggers (especially those with access to paid databases) enough documented cases to place a firm foundation on what is being discussed.

But this lack of factual common ground is probably not perceived as a weakness by Graff, and may even be irrelevant to her. My guess is that she sees herself as something akin to a performance artist, with us as the moving pieces on the stage.

That would certainly explain her general reluctance to appear in the give-and-take.

I agree, Kozmic, I like independence too, no clubs.
Either you agree wih my thoughts or not. I'm always open to change my mind on issues.

I'd rather have dialogue and not driveby ratings abuse. In that way, if I am wrong or I a missing a point, at least I can correct an idea refine the thought.

I find enjoyment and chuckle at your responses and how worked up people get.

For barrier harassment to have real force, it must be collective. There must be those doing it, those egging them on, and those aware of it and tolerating it ... if only by remaining silent. If the response among most male peers to efforts to launch barrier harassment is open scorn, that can take the wind out of the sails of all but the sickest puppies out there.

As I said, you work hard to take offense.

"Something should be done about that"?

Was that some sort of threat? Kind of makes my point doesn't it.