Standing our ground

I'm submitting this post to Crablaw's Take Back the Blog swarm, a collection of blog writing in solidarity with women who have been threatened or silenced online.

The name of the blogswarm is a reference to the Take Back The Night events taking place tonight.

I'd like to think that we don't need to take back blogs just yet. For all its faults, the blogosphere is still a relatively safe way for many women to participate in the public sphere. Pseudonymity and social support are aspects of blogging that can give a voice to women who might not be comfortable airing their views at a public meeting or in an op/ed. Some of these women may be willing to speak their minds on a personal blog that's enmeshed in a supportive community.

I believe that we can maximize the opportunities and minimize the risks even further by continuing to foster a culture of mutual respect online.

It is important to remember that the sexualized threats directed against tech blogger Kathy Sierra were not just the result of the perp's personal perversions.

Sexualized threats exploit the pervasive low-level fear that women in our society have about being raped. Yes, most of these death/rape threats are pure fantasies from total losers--but think about what it says about the level of fear and shame in our society that anonymous threats can pack such an emotional punch.

Men who haven't given much thought to their own vulnerability are often too quick to dismiss the apprehension of women who have been trained from childhood that they're potential targets and that it's their own fault if they are victimized.

Well-meaning people may inadvertently shame their allies who go public about threats by focusing exclusively on debunking the threat--as opposed commiserating with the victim.

If our goal is to reduce sexual violence, we must not lose sight of the fundamental question: Are we supporting the victim and stigmatizing the perp?

The first step is to acknowledge that the threat itself is an act of violence and intimidation.

So, when someone tells you they've been threatened, don't try to reassure them by asserting that nothing bad is going to happen. Something bad has already happened.

Acknowledge that a violation has already taken place. Instead of,"It's no big deal" try, "How dare he?" Instead of "You're overreacting," try, "I've got your back." Chances are, no further violence will materialize. Be thankful, but also think what you can do to minimize the hurt and anxiety that these threats cause the victim.

A lot of people think they're reassuring the victim by pointing out the relatively low probability that the perp will attack them. That strategy ignores the fact that it's intrinsically hurtful to be threatened, especially if those threats recapitulate other humiliating and traumatic episodes. Even anonymous blog comments and emails may remind the victim of the stereotypes that she has to live with all the time. Quite apart from the credibility of the threat, these crude taunts are a way of rubbing her face in the fact that no matter how smart or successful she is, there are guys out there who see her as just a female body.

Threateners get off on their power to instill fear. You can strike back at the perp by supporting the victim. If the target ends up feeling stupid or crazy because she shared her story, you've just helped the perp. The victim probably doesn't feel any safer, either. On the contrary, she probably feels even more isolated because she's not being taken seriously. The next threat will be even scarier when she realizes that her friends aren't going to take her seriously. Maybe she won't be so quick to speak up next time. 

Lest you think that the Kathy Sierra incident was an isolated event, here's a list of female bloggers who have been targeted lately: Jill Filipovic and her co-blogger zuzu targeted by their future colleagues on the law school admissions site AutoAdmit, and DeviousDiva threatened for calling attention abuses against the Roma minority in Athens. Let's not forget that former Edwards internet staffers Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte were bombarded with death and rape threats by self-appointed guardians of public piety.

The good news is that the progressive blogosphere rallied behind these victims and held up the ugliness of their harassers for all to see. I hope we can continue to build on this pattern of mutual support.

So, instead of pledging to take back the blog, let's say loud and clear that women aren't going anywhere. People of good will are going to stand together and force the bullies out.

Comments

[Bruce/Crablaw]

Thank you very much for all of your support, Lindsay. Yours is not up yet but between blogging and trying to keep an autistic 4-year-old from shattering the living room windows with a sippy cup for the sheer joy of it, I am a little behind.

[Disgusted Beyond Belief]

I'd like to add to your list of threatened bloggers. Renegade Evolution (linked to from my blog) was recently threatened with an "outing" of her personal information in order to silence her. The twist on this is that she was threatened by a woman feminist blogger (apparently for her critiques of radical feminism, though I have not read most of the threads involved). As a result, she has stopped all commenting on feminism, publicly declaring this on her blog. This sort of thing just makes me sad.

[Michael Hussey]

I wrote about the AutoAdmit story and dealt with their snarky crap from their site. Anthony Ciolli of the AutoAdmit sent me an email to explain to Jill comments. AutoAdmit is feeling heat because of the lefty blogs and Good Morning America story.

Side note: a post I wrote had comments from two female law students targeted by AutoAdmit. One of the students emailed me and said the comments were bogus. I deleted them. The AutoAdmit gang are not very nice.

[Jill Bains]

"People of good will are going to stand together and force the bullies out." -(Lindsay Beyerstein)

-Wishful thinking at best.

Bullying and intellectual thuggery against women who participate in blog commentary is now so nuanced and subtle that "people of good will" can barely recognize the different and varied forms it takes.

Why is this?

For the perverse reason that these alleged 'people of good will,' upon closer examination, find themselves in a tacit, un-admitted agreement-if not outright collaborators-with the very thugs they conveniently denounce.

Anonymity, in its effacing delicacy, has proven to be the hand maiden of a liminal sadism, ironically celebrated by its most vociferous detractors.Here we have misogyny, in its most baleful form-neutered into a technique.

This is all done with little more than' a wink and a nod,' but hardly news: Certain orthodoxies must be maintained at all costs.

"Which cost Ceres all that pain
To seek her through the world."
-(Milton, "Paradise Lost," iv)

[Michael Hussey]

Going through my AutoAdmit posts I found this item from Ann Althouse.

ADDED: Lindsay Beyerstein is more upset than I am about the fact that there is a lot of loose talk about people on the internet -- though presumably not about the dumb, loose talk about me on her own site. She fails to reveal what repressive remedies she has in mind to keep the internet from chattering. But I hope she'll at least do that "more speech" thing and condemn that blog where they impersonate me all the time -- or does she think I deserve it? Anyway, go over there and read about her outrage and about what an unsympathetic clod I am, and check out how she re-defames me over the old Clinton blogger lunch incident. See if you can figure out how she proposes to embrace the web with nurturing kindness and save women from all that talk out there. Hint: You can't. Either the remedies she has in mind are too repressive to scare you with, or she's content with just expressing outrage and sympathy. I'm coming down on the side of free speech on this, and that's one more thing she's outraged about.

Althouse's free speech stance seems to work one way. She can making snarky comments about other women. The moment she calls someone else on her statements she engages in hostility. Her Blogginghead performance fall under WTF.

Althouse gets emotional and it appears to me that she finds attacks against her person hurtful. Which is exactly people's objections to the Jessica Valenti and AutoAdmit posts. The mission of Take Back the Blog is an expression of free speech. Women are publicly stating their support for each other. How Althouse sees things like this as censorship says much about her.

[anonymous]

Respectfully Lindsey, there really are an awful lot of women out there who enjoy the "support group" attention, and might actually enjoy playing the victim. I know, I know. This might be exactly the attitude of dismissal you are describing. But when you "give support" to those who may just be feeling lonely and looking for a community by exaggerating "threats", you continue this mentality.

Why not encourage these women to continue blogging, report true threats to the police, or let time pass and see if there is anything "plus" that goes with the words. It's not always too late then.

For every "false positive", for every thing "organized" in fact built particularly on the "Take Back" theme of victimization, you are automatically conceding women will get and do face different treatment online. Sorry, but most word threats are not anything more. You can't stifle language or deny that our culture is becoming horrible crass and ugly in its words. To pull female bloggers out and try to protect them from words (go to the police if it's words plus, or localized), is just not going to work in today's society. Why distinguish men from women here? Why play the victim card from the start? Has there been that much female victimization, or some just automatically suspect it.

Your views seem rational, Lindsey. Tell me, if you had a daughter, and on the playground she heard bad things, how would you tell her to deal? How about a teen who got a nasty email online? I think you'd use "judgment", and chances are, you might find some of it is just hot words, typed in today's technology instead of verbally passed. If you overreact on all, by organizing such "take back's", then don't you lose credibility when there really is a threat "plus". I think you do. Better to teach judgment, words alone can't hurt, and avoidance (turn off comments if needed, don't allow anonymous comments, screen your emails, etc.) By putting the power on the blogger, she/he won't get so worked up over the minor words, and can spot the true threats plus. Otherwise, you're cramping communication styles and putting unnecessary fear out there. Then, who wins ?

[anonymous]

Let's not forget that former Edwards internet staffers Melissa McEwan and Amanda Marcotte were bombarded with death and rape threats by self-appointed guardians of public piety.

One of them put some pretty ugly words about Catholics out there. She didn't take time to craft respectable objections, just used her style and made what some thought were ugly accusations. So she got ugly back. We are surprised at this? She doesn't deserve to be raped over her words of course, but she got only words back. Not words plus. Is she complaining here? She's not one of the submissive types you were writing about, fearful type? Those I worry for. If you put out ugly and get ugly back though, par for the course. If you don't like it, craft your opinions respectfully/ do unto others. She threatened them, they threatened back. It's a mass medium. Don't overrexaggerate, or hype the word "threats" is my honest advice. Those who do are doing it at the expense of a true threat "plus" to a more submissive woman -- crying wolf so she drops out.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Yes, that is exactly the kind of knee-jerk dismissal I'm talking about.

You're just assuming that when a woman complains about harassment, it's probably her problem. You assume she just wants attention. You assume she's not entitled to any attention if she reaches out for support. If someone's getting picked on, I want to hear about it. I want a chance to stick up for them.

I hope that when I'm the person who's getting attacked, my friends and colleagues will stick up for me. That's how I was raised, and that's how I'd raise my own kids, male or female. You stand up for yourself, and you stand up for your friends. You stand with the people who are fighting back, and you help look out for those who can't defend themselves. It's really not that difficult.

You'll notice that when you dismiss someone out of hand they never say, "Holy shit, I never considered they might just be a loser! How wise and perceptive."

Where does self-confidence come from? Not from some magic place in the pineal gland. It comes from the realization that you've got friends and allies who will defend you.

[Eric Jaffa]

anonymous -

Criticizing a Catholic pamphlet against birth control is "words" and threatening to rape someone is "words."

But the former is legal. Threats of violence are illegal.

[anonymous]

Not if it's not a credible threat.

She put out offensive but non-physical ugly (it was not so innocent as "criticizing a Catholic pamphlet" -- she chose her words to offend, and they landed. Some no doubt felt "threatened" but Catholics are kind of tough/wordly no so afraid of words. They dished right back. She hit her target; they hit theirs ... with words. Again, you are nuts to want to lump word threats in with credible word threats "plus".

If one of those two received the latter, trust me, you would immediately see the difference. (like with the noose picture).

[aeroman]

Coincidentally, the inequities that arise when friends, family and other loyal parties are left to be the only line of defense are addressed in the latter part of my blogswarm contribution.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Anonymous, get your facts straight. Amanda never threatened anyone.

Also, a stalker showed up in Melissa McEwan's driveway. That wasn't just words.

[anonymous]

You're just assuming that when a woman complains about harassment, it's probably her problem. You assume she just wants attention.

Some do, some don't. Telling the difference is key. Lumping Marcotte/McEwan in with the "victims" is telling

Do unto others. Put ugly words out, then go cry to mommy when you get it back. Not a winning strategy. OT: Reminds me of a certain Mid East country that can never understand why bad things happen to them when they are only "protecting" themself by dishing out the same treatment first. I suspect they'll continue to be "victimized" unless they take responsibility for their actions. It makes the truly "victimized", those innocent of firestarting, get less attention to their needs. That's what I predict will happen here. To many victims, no credibility down the line.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I've got a suggestion, anonymous. If it bothers you so much to see Amanda Marcotte and Kathy Sierra getting attention, why don't you condemn the people who are threatening them?

No threats, no complaints, no complaints, no attention...

So, it's your job to tell the threateners to knock it off and stop (horror!) helping women get attention.

Are you really interested in advancing discourse? Or are you just apologizing for guys who like to threaten women with rape?

[anonymous]

Also, a stalker showed up in Melissa McEwan's driveway. That wasn't just words.

Then it was a threat "plus". Don't focus on the words, focus on the "plus".

“Writing on the Pandagon blogsite, December 26, 2006, Amanda Marcotte wrote that ‘the Catholic church is not about to let something like compassion for girls get in the way of using the state as an instrument to force women to bear more tithing Catholics.’ On October 9, 2006, she said that ‘the Pope’s gotta tell women who give birth to stillborns that their babies are cast into Satan’s maw.’ On the same day she wrote that ‘it’s going to be bad PR for the church, so you can sort of see why the Pope is dragging ass.’ And on June 14, 2006, she offered the following Q&A: ‘What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit,’ to which she replied, ‘You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.’

This wasn't respecing Catholic Democrats, or written except to hurt and offend. I suspect that's what she got back. No harm, no foul. Play on. Don't like the words? Choose your own better to make your points. When you offend, you get offensive back. Without the "plus" that's not a crime, it's words in 2007.

[anonymous]

Or are you just apologizing for guys who like to threaten women with rape?

Lindsay: Please don't make me into an enemy. I am saying distinguish, and don't get oversensitive to words. It hurts women overall, the open blogosphere overall, and the truly threatened overall. I'm in no way defending real rapists. Don't overreact.

[aeroman]

Anonymous, I like to hope that I'm one of the last people on Earth who will ever be faulted for being too much of an Amanda Marcotte apologist, but you're relying on a totally specious characterization of what Amanda said. "Threatening" doesn't just refer to hurting someone's feelings. Threats state or imply a potential of some future action. None of Amanda's statements did that.

[inkybrain]

Regarding the whole Bloggers/Edwards thing, the prevalence (or rather, superabundance) of gendered threats and intimidation seems pretty hard to ignore. So far as I know, they in fact characterized most of the responses Amanda and Melissa received. Saying basically that they're just words, so women shouldn't bother their pretty little heads at all - that doesn't make much sense to me. After all, wasn't it the supposed words of Amanda and Melissa (or their misinterpretation) that apparently touched off this whole firestorm? Which I guess is to say, why are their words deemed worthy of attack, but trying to defend them is somehow overreacting? Not to get too cryptic, but words mean things and can do things as well. And anyway, even if one were to believe that Amanda's satirical blogposts were like the height of iniquity (which I certainly don't), I still don't see how that justifies (!) harassment and threats of violence. I mean, last I checked, the "Do unto others" dictum wasn't exactly permission for a kind of social vengeance. Just the opposite, to my mind.

And regarding Take Back the Blog, support for it seems to be so simple and decidable as to be damn near Pascalian. It'll help at least some women; perhaps not be needed by others; and I really don't see it grievously harming any. Sounds like the right choice to me.

[Eric Jaffa]

There is no God.

There are no angels.

Jesus was conceived through sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

People who imply the above three statements don't deserve threats of violence.

[Hawise]

anonymous, there is a huge difference between words that attack a major cultural institution and that are offensive to its adherents and words that are designed to intimidate and threaten a single speaker/writer.
Let us leave personal feelings about Amanda's writing aside, what you want us to be sensitive about is so much background noise. Does that surprise you? That the women around you don't even hear most of the threats anymore, they are just so constant, so pervasive that it washes away. Don't dare call women oversensitive to threats of violence, intimidation and isolation. When most women call people on threats it is because they have gone over a line that most men wouldn't have tolerated for a moment. Lindsay is not overreacting, she is responding to the very real vibe that your words are sending out. You may want to reconsider your own writings before questioning her reaction.

[anonymous]

People who imply the above three statements don't deserve threats of violence.

It's all in how you word it, love. Maybe you misread those "threats of violence" too? Tell me, time has passed ... how many of them came true?

[anonymous]

there is a huge difference between words that attack a major cultural institution...

She attacked everyone who comprose that institution. We are the Church. Those are our beliefs she shat upon.

Look at how Catholics have been denigrated and denied. The "plus" that goes with the hateful words. Can you see where someone outside your favored group might feel very physically threatened too, and their children for believing? So they respond with hateful words, attacking back.

Until you prove the "plus" that makes the words credible, it really is background noise. When you get the noose picture, or the stalker in the driveway, concentrate on those "actions", not the merely hateful "threatening" words. Better yet, choose the original words better to make your point without attacking an entire group for your personal issues with leaders, particular individuals, or a creed that you obviously don't understand. Maybe learn a bit about Catholic victimization (we don't tend to wear it on our sleeves like other groups) too before you go spewing hate? You put it out there, you can't be too surprised when it comes back in your face. Ugly hateful "threatening" words, that is.

[Trystero]

Spare me the whining about the poor belagured Catholic Church. Only 1 billion members!* Half of all christians!

I guess basically running all of Europe for 1000 years wasn't enough.

*Numbers from Adherents.com

[nothim]

How is making fun of a doctrine or suggesting that the pontiff rethink his logic a threat to the members of a church? I'm Catholic, and I know there is a lot of anti-Catholic bigotry out there, but I've never felt threatened by idiots calling me a "Mary-worshipper" or "not a real Christian" much less by another Catholic person pointing out inconsistencies in doctrine. Those statements albeit irreverant and perhaps over the top in crudeness neverless DO NOT constitute a threat. No matter how you try to slice it; they never say "I will or would do this act to that person". Threats do just that. Find words of Amanda's that suggest she intends to DO something to someone (or even some institution) and then we can call it a threat.

[aeroman]

Anonymous, I don't really see how the noose picture is "words plus" in any convincingly meaningful way. It's still just communication. Are you drawing the line at using image files rather than text? Seems like a ridiculous line to draw.