Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is long one....if you dont have a few mins...move to the next thread...


I realise I should have expected it from logging on to the Gruaniad website, but the following article has me seething...


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/26/women-misogynist-trolls-feminist-internet



A short rant required...


1. So now we have research which shows the the majority of 'misogynist' abuse towards women on the internet comes from young women, not from men. According to the article "now we know many trolls are young women, the searchlight shines on schools? failure to look after children?s well-being". Because, previously, when we thought it was mostly men throwing the abuse, we just thought the men need to learn to control themselves. Now we have to find someone other than the abusers to blame...

2. When referring to male online abusers, the author repeatedly refers to them as 'Sad, Angry Men'; but the implication is that the young women committing the abuse are lovely middle-class princesses; corrupted by the evil patriarchal world

3. The study reveals 10,000 messages in the UK with these abusive terms, so of the ~12m or so internet users and millions of twitter messages, its a drop in the ocean. But of course the PC brigade cant stand by without a parliamentary campaign. We all know there arent any other issues that our politicians could be focusing on.


Don't get me wrong, I'm against any form of abuse, online or otherwise, it just winds me up when a national publication publishes this tripe in the name of 'social justice'....


Rant over. Sorry you had to bother reading if you even got this far.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/108124-feminist-internet/
Share on other sites

If you want to see hoards of the generally female, mostly white, reasonably educated but not the sharpest tools in the box rabid trolls have a look at the Food Babe Army along with the rest of the David Wolfe groupies, antivaxxers, homeopathy, etc crowds. Quite a lot of them would be Guardian readers too.

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you want to see hoards of the generally female,

> mostly white, reasonably educated but not the

> sharpest tools in the box rabid trolls have a look

> at the Food Babe Army along with the rest of the

> David Wolfe groupies, antivaxxers, homeopathy, etc

> crowds. Quite a lot of them would be Guardian

> readers too.


Just scroll through the EDF for that I'd say!

Or is this a mysogynistic post in itself? Discuss

binkylilyput Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> root Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > If you want to see hoards of the generally female,

> > mostly white, reasonably educated but not the

> > sharpest tools in the box rabid trolls have a look

> > at the Food Babe Army along with the rest of the

> > David Wolfe groupies, antivaxxers, homeopathy, etc

> > crowds. Quite a lot of them would be Guardian readers too.

>

> Just scroll through the EDF for that I'd say!

> Or is this a mysogynistic post in itself? Discuss


Simple answer: No.


More complex answer: No.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...