He said that women couldn’t be collaborated with because they just cry when you criticize them. That’s what he said, and when offered a chance to step back from those statements, he refused.
He was invited to a lunch held by women scientists, and proceeded to basically say that women scientist suck. That’s basically just super rude.
I seriously have to explain how the comment “It’s a nice place if you have a white penis” is transmisogynistic when applied to this topic? Really?
Mmm, no.
John Oliver made the statement (paraphrased), “If you don’t think online harassment is a big deal, congratulations on your white penis” not “If you have a white penis, you don’t think online harassment is a big deal.”
I could draw you a Venn diagram if you like or diagram the sentence, but anyone who thinks online harassment is a big deal would not be included including white pre-op trans women and of course, white cis men who don’t have their head in the sand.
It is a joke about how it is usually white men who deny online harassment is a big deal. There are plenty of women and non-white men who deny it too, but you know: joke.
Thanks. I was unable to watch the video yet, and was going by the text underneath the video - which paints a very different message.
I still think the joke is a bit reductive, especially as it seems to cover-over a lot of abuse (a huge section of they-who-shall-not-be-named are abusive women, TERFs are a serious problem, etc) but not nearly as bad.
Oh wait, haven’t you heard? There’s a HUUUUUUUUUUUGE problem of women posting revenge porn videos online and criticizing the male power structure saying hurtful, horrible things to men everywhere else. Just horrible things! Like, like…MOM GET OUT OF MY ROOM…like uh…where were we?
Personally I found the segment to be a bit of a mess. Oliver jumped around a lot covering online harassment, the lack of knowledge among police on how to enforce laws covering online harassment, revenge porn and the lack of laws around revenge porn.
I kind of wish he had dropped the revenge porn part completely and stuck with online harassment or dropped the online harassment for the revenge porn. It got really confusing when he was talking about what laws existed where and for what. He seemed to imply that online harassment is not illegal in all 50 states, but threats of physical violence on the Internet are covered by Title 18 Code § 875.
I have no idea why those women’s lawyers told them they had to send naked pictures of themselves to claim copyright (which doesn’t even make sense, copyright is on the individual work not on the subject except for likeness statues which only apply if they are using your image to sell something). You only register your copyright if you want to sue for monetary damages. If you want them to take it down, you can send them a DMCA notice which doesn’t require sending any naked pictures to anyone and can be done for free or through one of the many, many reputation services extremely cheaply.
Criticize? You know we don’t criticize! We call for mob rule! And denouncement! And public shaming! And firings! And PC Thought-Policing! And we make up threats and simply ruin innocents lives for fun! Did you not get the most recent memo?
TBH, I’m getting this from comments I’ve seen on twitter. Self-ID’d woman posts something, is leapt upon by GGers or other jackasses, and when self-id’d men jump in to say WTF, the OP asks to be left out of the shit-flinging that ensues. Where I used to be happy to jump in (which, frankly, I did here, too), I’m getting to the point where I don’t know if it’s better to ignore the assholes and move on, or at the least to try and engage substantively. I think Leigh Alexander has said similar things to what I think you’re saying, but as a man who feels like the misogynists must go elsewhere…I’m not sure how else I could be a force for positive change in the online communities I tend to travel in.
As a lady on the twitters, please don’t stop jumping in.
So ideally, he should have said ‘white cis-penis’ but then nobody would have understood the joke outside of the genderqueer community and select fellow-travellers.
[quote=“Thebarton_Gamer, post:29, topic:60178, full:true”]I’d like to congratulate @unshaved_weirdo, @meanidea and @TheRizz on their white penises. [/quote]So because I pointed out that muddling things up and confusing several issues is going to water arguments down and make it harder to actually effect change, you’ve decided to attempt to belittle me?
Sorry to tell you, but your asinine taunt does nothing but hurt your position, as it will alienate those who are actually trying to help. True haters will just laugh at it and push more (they crave the argumentative attention), whereas potential allies will leave, because why the fuck should someone try to help when it just gets them abuse?
Did Oliver suggest that misogyny is the sole motivation for online bullying/etc? I didn’t see that, maybe I missed it?
If he didn’t do that, it isn’t confusing. Means and motivations are not confusing when discussed together. It is confusing to me that any would need them discussed apart esp. as to discuss one apart from the other to adequately address the other?
Seems like you’re demanding a separation of means and motive, but why is that at all necessary when the discussion on motive merely includes some discussion of means?
Your requirement hamstrings or invalidates most discussions. Where is the net benefit? Why is it preferable at all to discuss misogyny without touching on it’s manifestations? Sounds like a bad deal.
Your requirement hamstrings or invalidates most discussions.
Bingo! I think we have a winner!
Because they care more about the treatment of women then themselves receiving such “abuse”, which it seems in this conversation about threats and bullying you’ve redefined to mean the odd snarky remark?
It is unfortunate when someone trying to help takes hits from others trying the same. It’s often a sign someone wasn’t really helping, that there was miscommunication, needless pedantry, or some attempt to steer the conversation. But it can happen anyway, and to some extent it is worth trying to avoid.
But let’s stop the nonsense demands that everyone needs to manage their tone for allies. This is a topic many people have a deep personal investment in. If someone else comes in with so little concern that the slightest slight makes them walk away with “well, I didn’t care that much about misogyny anyway”…how much of a potential ally were they?
Because it’s the right thing to do.
And if you believe it’s the right thing to do, then you will look for opportunities to make yourself more effective at it.
[quote=“funruly, post:35, topic:60178, full:true”]
[quote=“TheRizz, post:31, topic:60178”]
because why the fuck should someone try to help when it just gets them abuse?
[/quote]Because it’s the right thing to do.
And if you believe it’s the right thing to do, then you will look for opportunities to make yourself more effective at it.
[/quote]Or I could go help elsewhere. There are plenty of worthy causes to put my time into, and if I get abuse from those I try to help in one, and thanks from another, it’s fairly obvious which group I’m going to devote my time to.
[quote=“chenille, post:34, topic:60178, full:true”]
Because they care more about the treatment of women then themselves receiving such “abuse”,[/quote]There are other worthy causes for people to devote their time and energy to, which are just as bad and just as cared about. So why help the group that turns on you when you try to offer advice instead of just going elsewhere?
[quote=“chenille, post:34, topic:60178, full:true”]But let’s stop the nonsense demands that everyone needs to manage their tone for allies. This is a topic many people have a deep personal investment in. If someone else comes in with so little concern that the slightest slight makes them walk away with “well, I didn’t care that much about misogyny anyway”…how much of a potential ally were they?
[/quote]The problem with that line of thinking is that in order to get real change happening, you need to hit a certain critical mass of people calling for it. Those that benefit from the status quo are likely to resist change, either because they like the benefit, or don’t think of the detriments it causes others.
Simply put, there is a lot of inertia involved in any established social situation that must be overcome in order to effect change. Getting allies on your side - even “weak” allies - gives you both the raw numbers to get your grievances noticed, as well as bleeding support away from the other side. People are fickle, and as little as something like popularity should affect what they support or decry, the unfortunate truth is that it does affect it.
I’m sure you’ll change the world on the path of least resistance.
Sounds fun, care to identify any one of these causes that is so unified one side to the other, that there is no debate or dissent within?
Or which one finds itself benefits the most from people who help for the kudos?
Read back and ask yourself if that attitude might make you into not much of an ally?
I’ve been involved in labour disputes which were quite complex and quite dire. There never was a point at which everyone agreed or got along. The other side didn’t have those problems, but their emotional investment stopped at the dollar sign.
This statement contradicts your desire to jump ship to some other cause upon being criticized. Which is it? Is it a hard slog to victory, tolerating the slings and arrows from within & without, or is it just not worth it to you?
Glad to hear that the well being of half the population of the planet is not a worthy cause in your eyes, thanks so much! I’m sure those other “worthy” causes will be so much the better for all your aid.
If there were other causes that are truly just as important, and you think you can help them without antagonizing anyone, why would I want to stop you from focusing on them?
For women and minority issues, though, not everybody has your choice to be so detached from them. The most important thing for a would-be ally is then recognizing that others may have more experience, insight, and personal stake in the matter, and so listening to them. If you try to help with advice from your outsider position, and it doesn’t go over well, that’s probably because you aren’t being helpful.
And you won’t become helpful if you then try to make things about how you think people should respond, which is one of the classic derails. It’s nice to have numbers to effect change, but not if they hijack it.
