Female Bloggers Cry Rape!

Anna, I can assure you I get an inordinate amount of these kinds of comments. I contributed because I was asked, however if you look on my most recent blogpost, you'll also see that I have had in the neck from women as well, in fact women have been the most vicious.

I don't claim it's because I'm a woman, I think there is a multitude of reasons, but it happens, it's deeply unpleasant and to be fair when people talk about wanting to anally rape you and give you HIV, or "make your ass burn like the flames of hell you'll burn in", it is distressing, not only for me, but my husband too.

Caroline,

I don't disbelieve you - but since I don't get those sort of comments, and I am a woman, it would tend to suggest that there is some other difference between us?

Perhaps the style of writing, perhaps the topics covered, perhaps a lot of reasons - but I dispute that it is simply because you are female, as both the Observer and New Statesman articles were suggesting.

There was also some person who was found to have been posting abusive comments to himself on his own blog.

I don't give people the satisfaction of being heard. Also, I have a diverse readership and I don't wish to cause offence to others reading. These types of comments are squalid and nasty.

I DO routinely log and trace IP addresses and pass on as necessary.

What I will say is that male stuff is uniquely sexual, the female more pointedly personal. So women will attack my family, men will assault me physically via sex. The violent reaction is the same, but it is articulated or expressed differently. Sometimes I think the men are just more pervy, if I'm honest.

Dear Anna

No doubt Caroline does write differently to you. Presumably she has a different audience. Maybe even the commenting rules on her blog are different (I notice that this site requires confirmation via a valid email address in order to comment).

It could well be that all these factors combined, together with being female, result in the abuse that she has described.

That doesn't make it OK though, does it?

I've just read your latest article Caroline - I note you say that you attract these comments because "because I’m an attractive sensual woman".

I can only assume that you must believe the converse is true - I don't attract them because I'm not....not even with a paper bag over my head? How utterly depressing!

Anna that's obviously not what I'm saying and that's an illogical inference as I'm sure you're well aware.

My point is that there's a convergence of factors.

Anna that's obviously not what I'm saying and that's an illogical inference as I'm sure you're well aware.

My point is that there's a convergence of factors.

Leigh,

I do write on my own Libertarian blog where only libellous comments are ever moderated.

I didn't say that it was 'OK' - merely that it was no reason to stop writing, it is part and parcel of the Internet.

In the last few minutes Iain has been called a 'dick-wipe' on Twitter - its been part and parcel of internet traffic for ever - do you really want to see censorship on the internet because some people express ideas you don't agree with?

Caroline

Amused me no end when I read it!

Caroline

In fairness Caroline - what got me with the New Statesman article was the way in which all the contributions were turned round to read as though women were being attacked simply for being women. I don't believe that for one minute.

I agree, convergence of factors, in some cases just being an annoying whinger can lead to abuse - and that may be dished out in a way that identifies you as being a woman.

Gordon Brown wasn't disliked for having one eye, but that was the factor invariably mentioned in any abuse he received.

This article is offensive right from the title - 'cry rape' is, as you well know, a phrase used to imply that most/ many rape allegations are false because women, you know, just love going around making false accusations. Lucky you if you haven't been threatened with rape, murder, or finding where you live, but other female bloggers have. Well done for silencing them.
Maybe you should keep quiet until you *have* received such threats? After all, you can't know you'll deal with it any 'better' than these other women. Most people are traumatised by that sort of thing. If you think the stoic approach impresses people - it doesn't.
You're not stronger than the other women you insult - actually it takes far more strength and courage to speak out.

Well aren't you lucky? I guess being the top female blogger ever means all TEH MENZ are too scared to take you on!

It is irrelevant the sex or gender of the person making the threats. The act of threatening or harassing someone is unacceptable. There may very well be some women who pretend to be men online, in order to threaten other females they disagree with, with various acts of violence and rape. This still doesn't make it legal & the police should treat the complaint with the same level of severity. I am not advocating for censorship but a safe space mentality.

This post is frankly ridiculous. 'It hasn't happened to me, so I don't believe it's happened to you'. Check your privilege for fuck sake.

Anna, you comment:

'I don't disbelieve you - but since I don't get those sort of comments, and I am a woman, it would tend to suggest that there is some other difference between us? '

Please can you explain what possible difference there could be between you and Caroline, or indeed you and any of the women bloggers that are writing about this issue (myself included) that would justify Caroline and the other women bloggers being threatened with rape, and in Caroline's case, have your family threatened with violence?

Just because something hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it isn't a serious problem. Listen to what these women are saying and as women bloggers lets stand together to challenge online misogyny.

I wish I could rate this post 0 stars...

"Allegedly, ‘women writers across the political spectrum’, some of the ‘best known names in journalism’ no less, are hesitating to make their little voices heard in the blogosphere because the big bad men are being beastly to them."

Belittling these writers has no effect on the truth of their statements. (But it does make you sound like an awful person.)

"Apparently all the women quoted have been ‘threatened with rape’ by their trolls. Anonymous trolls. Trolls who claim to be male, as the writers claim to be female."

Your reasons for disbelieving this are...?

"Nobody has ever threatened me with rape – not even with a paper bag over my head, before you take the opportunity for that jibe."

This is an interesting mix of an argument from anecdote and from personal incredulity---both logically weak. 'I haven't experienced X, therefore it is not a problem' is spectacularly flawed reasoning.

"Eleanor O’Hagen says that ‘misogynist abuse is an attempt to silence women’ – thus sailing magnificently past the whole point of the Internet – you can’t be silenced! All you have to do is keep on writing..."

I suggest you read around your subject a little more; too many women have reported having their home addresses published online by misogynist commenters. It is easy to see how continuing to write thereby becomes an unattractive prospect.

"What are the police supposed to do when they track down the IP address of your abuser and discover that it is actually another one of the coven of left wing writers who are currently lobbying for a lack of free speech for anyone claiming to be male? Johann Hari famously claimed to be a variety of people male and female in order to silence his critics – was he alone in his tactics?"

When I first read this bit I was taken aback by its stupidity. Surely you realise how and why this is a flawed argument?

"Are some female bloggers subconsciously more concerned with being seen as women than as bloggers? Does their desire to be seen as a vulnerable community shine through in their writing and attract hostility?"

Again you show your lack of reading on the subject at hand. Women have reported being attacked online *just for being women*. See for example, female video game writers.

"It will take a damn sight more than abuse referring to the fact that I am female to prise my cold dead hand off this keyboard, and I am utterly shocked that that a series of lily livered women should be claiming that they have all given up writing for the main stream media – ‘the worst letters were filtered out before they reached me’ no less – because of on-line abuse. Grow up!"

Weak. 'Referring to the fact that I am female' is not the character of the threats other writers have received---and I think you know it.

But you've chosen, instead of joining the rest of us in the real world, to write a Brendan O'Neill-esque screed to wind people up.

And not even a very good one.

sianuska,

If you really believe that words alone - which is all trolling is - are so bally powerful, shouldn't you be calling for female bloggers to keep writing as I am and not give in to these 'threats'?
You really think it is only words against women that should attract such concern - that threats to male bloggers don't matter in some way?
By all means call for an end to threats if you wish, but don't' wrap it up in this mysogynistic nonsense, calling for solidarity amongst women.

Anna,

I'm really glad you haven't had to suffer this kind of abuse. It's really not nice to deal with.

Just three points though:

1) Just because you don't experience something, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do not have tonsilitis. This does not mean no one ever will have or has had it.

2) People who write left-wing articles will annoy the right. People who write right-wing articles will annoy the left. Is it possible that the right are quicker to use gendered threats of sexual violence?

3) You wrote this: http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/libertarian-liberties/ in April. The first paragraph reads:

"A while ago, two years and three months, to be precise, I was reading through the on-line political blogs, Guido, Dale, Old Holborn, the usual suspects, and thinking ‘where are all the women’? 50% of the voting population, and yet rarer than a blue parrot in northern Brazil. The few examples that dared to flap their wings were set upon by hungry misogynistic vultures."

Natalie

Anna: "I didn't say that it was 'OK' - merely that it was no reason to stop writing, it is part and parcel of the Internet."

I can't decide whether it's a reason to stop writing - that's a decision for each person individually. I am fortunate enough not to have received any messages like this (I think being male is one of the reasons, as well as my writing on technical economic subjects, which doesn't often provoke much response of any kind, let alone an emotional one). Until I do, it's very hard for me to imagine whether I'd feel comfortable or not in continuing to write.

What I can say is that it's important for us all - women and men - to take a stand against these kinds of hateful comments. If we can collectively help change online culture it will both reduce the pain and stress felt by people receiving this abuse, and encourage more people to join the public conversation, feeling more free to express a range of opinions in a constructive way.

Anna: "do you really want to see censorship on the internet because some people express ideas you don't agree with?"

I am not saying that censorship is the correct response - I don't know what is the correct response. But there is a difference in practice between "expressing ideas", and posting someone's home address with a threat to rape them.

I accept that it's hard to make clear distinctions between different kinds of speech. Perhaps the decision our society will collectively make is that preserving the freedom to make any act of speech is a more important principle than any other. But even if so, it is still worth calling out, and actively responding to with our own words, speech acts which constitute emotional abuse, or threats of physical assault.

Anna, I think you're missing the point somewhat. Or deliberately misunderstanding what these women bloggers are saying.

The women writing on the NS piece, the women writing about this subject all over the place (including me, here: http://sianandcrookedrib.blogspot.com/2011/11/my-guide-to-online-abuse-and-excuses.html) are writing, are continuing to write and they are encouraging other women to write. They are writing about the abuse they receive because they want to speak out about it and say it is unacceptable. Calling us 'lily livered' for actually speaking out about the online violence that is committed against us is nasty but it's also quite silly, as speaking out is not being 'lily livered'. In fact, it's pretty courageous.

And yes, trolling is 'just words'. But when those words are physical and sexual threats accompanied by your home address - as Cruella described - then those words are pretty intimidating and frightening. I'm really pleased you've never had to deal with this kind of behaviour, but mocking and calling the women who have had to deal with it cowardly is just ridiculous.

And seeing as you brought it up, of course threats to male bloggers matter in the same way, but the facts are there (and supported by a lot of male bloggers i know) - sexist, misogynistic sexually violent abuse is experienced by women far more than men, just as in the offline world, violent sexist street harassment is experienced by women more than men.

'Nobody has ever threatened me with rape'

In which case: why are you telling other women how they should react to something you have not personally experienced?

This seems to me to be a contrarian article from someone who does not practice what she preaches. She blogs under an assumed name because as she herself says she has been threatened and in a previous posting said 'the internet has become a dangerous place..'. If a troll says I know where you live it is hardly likely to bother someone living in the depths of rural France with an unpublished address. For women bloggers living in London or other UK cities it becomes more real.
The growing up needs to be done by Anna or at least get real. In my time as a feminist I have received abusive and sometimes pornographic mail and in one case razor blades. By the way misogyny isn't an 'ism'.

Natalie:

>>2) People who write left-wing articles will annoy the right. People who write right-wing articles will annoy the left. Is it possible that the right are quicker to use gendered threats of sexual violence?

That doesn't actually matter though, does it? I've unfollowed/defriended self-declared feminist writers because they wrote things like "needs a kick in the cunt" about women they don't agree with. Left-wing men can be just as vicious against women who are saying things that are inconvenient for them to hear as right wing men. And as Caroline Farrow said on the New Statesman blog, there are certainly people who think that "I hope your son/daughter is gay and gets bullied" is an acceptable response to someone writing from a conservative point of view about LGBT issues.

This is something that totally cuts across left and right: it's unacceptable wherever it's coming from, and should be condemned as such wherever it comes from. Don't get distracted by arguing whether the left or the right is "worse". I don't have to agree with everything Caroline Farrow writes to be happy to stand in a coalition with her and say that threatening violence is never, ever a valid form of debate.

Anna - I'm unclear whether you're saying that you believe it happens to other women but it doesn't happen to you, whether you doubt it really happens as other women claim, or whether you are suggesting that other women bring it on themselves because of what they choose to write about. And I'm not sure where you've got the idea that anyone's trying to create any kind of legal framework banning a certain type of comment (except insofar as we already have legislation against harassment and threats of violence). But just to be clear:

1. do you condemn threats of violence against bloggers?

2. do you think that more women would participate in online political blogging if there was less tolerance by participants of violent threats?

TheNatFantastic,

1. I have never said that this sort of abuse doesn't exist. Only that it is not universal towards all women bloggers. I am sure that some bright spark will ensure that I don't feel left out in the next few days!

2. Is it possible that right wing commentators are quicker to use gendered threats - absolutely! I would doubt that the New Statesman article could have found 7 or 8 right wing bloggers who would have complained in the same tones.

3. You quote me accurately. See comment 1. above. I would also add that as a result of that article I was comprehensively outed, my name and address published freely on the Internet. My response was to change my contact page to include a photograph of myself and my real name. Not to stop writing.

If you want a feminist argument - then I would say this. If the words of male trolls are so powerful - then what does it say of women, particularly alleged feminists, that they back off and accept that their words are not sufficiently powerful to be worth sharing any longer?

I firmly believe that I have as much right to publish my blog as anyone - and no amount of mere words is going to make me back off.

Perhaps I am more of a feminist than the female bloggers quoted?

Following my previous comment, I should acknowledge that some of the speech being objected to is not directly threatening, but uses particular language to casually demean women and their opinions (Helen Lewis Hasteley today mentions the word "shrill" as a typical example).

I certainly don't think that kind of language should be considered hate speech, or is a candidate for censorship in any way. But we should make an effort to notice it, call it out, and respond to it - because that language in itself has a chilling effect on free speech. Words like "shrill" give both commenters, and the people who read their comments, an excuse to dismiss opinions that challenge them. They contribute to an atmosphere which dampens the legitimate voice of the writer before their argument is even heard. So if we want a public conversation that is based on quality of opinion and strength of argument, and not on personal characteristics of the writer, we should be vigilant towards this type of comment and speak out against it when we see it.

Val Stevens,

"to bother someone living in the depths of rural France with an unpublished address"

My address has been frequently published and republished on the Internet - indeed broadcast across America for what it is worth!

>>I firmly believe that I have as much right to publish my blog as anyone - and no amount of mere words is going to make me back off.

Perhaps I am more of a feminist than the female bloggers quoted?
___

Really? This is about Who's A Better Feminist?

Anna,

I AM one of the feminist bloggers quoted in the NS piece. You say we 'cry rape' - this implies it does not happen.

If someone is getting a deluge of hate mail, including specific threats against themselves or their family, you honestly think that they should just rise above it to prove a point?

Writing in and of itself is a form of anarchy. We choose to express ourselves or at least our view of the world through the filter of our personalities and intellect therefore it is bound to rub someone the wrong way. Everyone in this profession is aware that they will affect others and many times a backlash will ensue. To write you need two things for survival: a thick hide and a narrow focus. If you don't have those, it is perhaps time to reassess your career choice. Journalism is all about stirring the pot and creating controversy thus engaging in dialogue that is at times heated and nasty. It is out of this turmoil that we find common ground and solutions and dare I say it? Agreement. I am writing this from a place of experience. As a survivor of rape, domestic violence as well as a feminist writer and activist, I am fully aware of what mysogeny is and how it works to silence those who challenge the ruling majority. To be succinct, if someone wants you to shut up through threats or insults, then this is all the more reason to keep talking and endure despite opposition. I know I intend to.

marykmac,

1. do you condemn threats of violence against bloggers?
Yes absolutely. Do I think that the police should be involved as per the original article. No.

2. do you think that more women would participate in online political blogging if there was less tolerance by participants of violent threats?

Possibly. However I don't believe that 'special exceptions' or arrangements should be made for women. Heat and Kitchen come to mind - there is plenty of abuse against Iain for being Gay.

You see, I don't believe that women are somehow 'lesser creatures' that need to be protected - we are quite capable of standing up for ourselves as men have to. If we want to play Rugby we need to be physically tough enough to do so - not to demand that the rules be changed. (for the absence of doubt, I also believe that there are many spheres where women are far superior in native talent than men)

In an ideal world there wouldn't be any abuse - however I also believe that we have so far legislated against thought crime and 'hate-speech' that the Internet is possibly the last place where people can speak their mind, and I don't want to see that change.

Val B Russell,

More power to your elbow - I salute you!

>>, I don't believe that women are somehow 'lesser creatures' that need to be protected

I more see it the other way around: I don't think that men are special creatures who need to be protected by continuing to engage on a playing field where they don't get abused for their gender, but the women they are engaging with do.

Condemning hate speech isn't about creating Special Rules For Ladies, it's about saying that men don't need the special privilege of a space for debate where they can (should they choose) try to force a woman to shut up by talking about what's between her legs.

I also don't think it's a choice between condemning misogynist abuse online OR condemning homophobic speech: I'm a queer woman and I am perfectly happy to extend my condemnation to homophobic threats, racist threats, threats based on religious views or disability and so on. And I am more than happy to condemn violent threats from people who are ostensibly "on my side".

I think that anyone who makes threats of violence should be called out and (where possible) denied access to the debate. Where people use language which is non-violent but still picks on a particular aspect of a poster's identity - the "shrill" mentioned above, or comments which attempt to deny someone's right to a point of view because they're gay - it should be named, shamed and condemned. We get to set the standards for the type of debate we're willing to engage in.

marymac.

Men don't get abused for their gender? do please take a stroll through the political blogopshere!

I have now put this piece on my own blog - so if you wish to continue the debate, you are welcome to follow me over there, but I have to attend to my own house as well as answer comments here!

http://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/female-bloggers-cry-rape/

You will not be abused by any of my regular commentators for your gender, it's a good humoured place - though in the light of this article, I can't promise that it won't attract a few jokers. As usual, I shan't moderate - usually trolls get laughed out of my pad by the other commentators.

If any men want to write about experiencing the kind of threats of specific sexual violence that women bloggers receive, I am absolutely happy to condemn that too. But so far I've only seen men saying that they don't get half the abuse their female counterparts get, or suggesting that people calling them Neanderthals is the equivalent of a threat of rape.

I think it is misleading to try and compare the way men and women are treated online. One comment I saw on another blog made good sense. Men and women attack in different ways, and are sensitive to different attacks.

Cath Elliot is a feminist blogger who earlier this year complained about hateful language she received online. I would direct your attention to her own comments, and those of readers of her blog, on hearing news of Sebastian Horsley's death. The level of vitriol was something to be believed. Unless I am missing something, she is shockingly hypocritical.

I think things happened that way because she, like other feminists, treat everything as a short-term point-scoring tactic. If they can use a point of view to win an argument one day - that is fine. They are then offended if you remember what they said a few days later, after they've contradicted themselves.

The contradiction isn't the point, you see. The point is winning today's debate, getting a better deal for women no matter what.

If you point out that their stats (on for example domestic violence, or the "wage gap") are deeply flawed, they will variously forget, not understand, change the subject, say it doesn't matter....Anything.

I hope you can forgive my cynicism about feminists. Perhaps the people arguing in this way truly don't realise how irrational they are. I think a lot of people know this, but few dare say it. It is in this light that I view this debate about female bloggers treatment online. They say women get more abuse - but let's face it, have they researched whether that is true? Or are they just saying it's worse to talk to women that way than it is to talk to men? I'm not sure the answer will be enlightening...

More likely they just confidently say "we're oppressed", because they know they won't be called up on it. Especially if they use the R-word (and they have). Men haven't confronted this situation properly, so it's partly our fault.

Leigh Caldwell

I'm responding to your last comment about hate-speech and how we should.

a) you better have a damn good definition of what hate-speech is, because otherwise people are going to use it to mean whatever they want it to mean (spot the irony)

b) "But we should make an effort to notice it, call it out, and respond to it". This does sound like the new kind of threat to free speech that a lot of "progressives" pose.

I say this particularly as your example - the word "shrill" - is ridiculously weak. We really want to hound people down for using that word? And the way this sort of thing is usually done is FAR closer to censorship than you claim.

I've been called much worse things by feminists. I suppose you would want to "call out" Laurie Penny for the implication that people who disagree strongly with her can't get a sex life?

Or is that perfectly ok? And if so why? When is it ok to be rude and continue stereotypes, and when is it not? Is it quite simply ok to be rude about "white middle class men", or toffs, and terrible to be rude about oppressed groups by any chance?

(ok that was a rhetorical question. You see all the nonsense you say has these here things called "consequences")

Laurie Pennie is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Please take a moment to read her blog on how she is waiting to throw a party when Margaret Thatcher dies:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2010/10/margaret-thatcher-healthier#reader-comments

So hoping somebody dies is ok, but somebody anonymous threatening rape on a public message board is just going to far is it?

Clearly this self proclaimed feminist, doesn't see the irony of her comment ‘a woman must be sexually appealing to be taken seriously as a thinker’. Thatcher did more for furthering the cause of women than Penny could inadvertently undo with her sermon of positive discrimination.

I would have thought people have thicker skins these days. People shouting offensive ramblings are part and parcel of the internet message board. It is in no way the same as somebody saying the same thing to you in the pub. As with people who wouldn't say Boo to a Goose, yet have spats of road rage, safe in their cocoon of a car. It is very easy for people to say anything they want to rile you if they think they will never be found out.

Also - in case I wasn't clear in my comments - Thank you for a well thought out article and opinion Anna (Susanne) Raccoon.

Two last points to throw back in Laurie Penny and the leftie 'feminist' bloggers face from Thatcher:

“If you just set out to be liked, you will be prepared to compromise on anything at anytime, and would achieve nothing. ”

? Margaret Thatcher

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

? Margaret Thatcher

Hzle:

Thanks for your response, as I was not sure whether I'd been clear in my postings. Apparently I was not.

a) I agree that hate-speech is a very hard thing to define. My instinct is that we should probably err on the conservative side, in treating borderline cases as not-hate-speech, because allowing people to speak freely is such a fundamentally important principle to society. However, in holding that opinion I have to mention that I have not been a victim of anything that could be described as hate speech, so it's hard for me to give an authoritative view. I am prepared to allow the possibility that it may ultimately be impossible to make a workable definition, in which case perhaps society will decide that all speech is permissible. I believe this position is consistent with my earlier comment.

b) Look again at my proposed response to words like "shrill". You accurately quote me: "But we should make an effort to notice it, call it out, and respond to it".

I absolutely stand behind this. The correct way to respond to an act of speech that we think is wrong, is to speak in response, explaining why we disagree and attempt to set a different tone. Note the distinction between the expression of an opinion - to which the appropriate response is to open-mindedly consider the message and respond logically - and an ad hominem attack which ignores the message and pursues the speaker. If someone wishes to indulge in attacks that exploit and perpetuate damaging and unfounded cultural assumptions, it's entirely fair that our responses (which should also remain within the domain of speech) target the assumptions themselves. Of course we should also respond to the arguments, but the implicit claims of the speaker are fair game too.

I'd certainly never suggest that in responding firmly we should "hound somebody down" as you put it. I wouldn't want people to use language any more forceful than I have done in these comments here.

You say that a response like this is a "new kind of threat to free speech", but I am not sure why. If you claim that the original speech is acceptable I don't see how you can object to the response.

You ask whether we should "call out Laurie Penny for the implication that people who disagree strongly with her can't get a sex life". I haven't seen the statement you're referring to, but if that is what she said then absolutely, she should be criticised for making the argument personal and contributing to an antagonistic tone of debate. The same standards have to be applied to everyone in these conversations.

sianushka said: "Listen to what these women are saying and as women bloggers lets stand together to challenge online misogyny."

Calm down dear.

Leigh Caldwell

good response.

When I talk about a "threat to free speech" I ought to be a bit clearer what I'm saying (I'm assuming people know what I mean which is naughty). I'm talking about the fact that there has been an escalation in the kind of social pressure to stop people saying certain things.

You're right to say that if I don't object to words like "shrill" then I can't object to the kind of response to it that you suggest. I would however say that the silent social censure that we are so good at in the UK, is turning into something from '1984' (or maybe the things we can't talk about have changed). Your comments reminded me of this a little, I confess.

If we pick people up every time they are rude about each other there's a thin line separating that from restrictions on freedom of speech and opinion. Especially words like 'shrill' which seem pretty tame. I think every insinuation about men not having girlfriends etc falls into the same category - but no fuss is made about that.

From everything I have seen of feminism, for all their talk of equality, the rules they propose seem to end up benefiting women and only women. When you say yes Laurie Penny or Julie Burchill or whoever* should be called up in the same way you show that you recognize that equality means equality.

But all the language I'm hearing from the bloggers is about abuse of 'women'. Why not talk about abuse of 'people'? Why do we have to narrow the issue and just talk about abuse of one section, with the entirely false implication that only men behave badly to the other sex. The use of the R-word seems part of the same plan: let's get everyone talking about things that only men do and say.

See Tom Martin's video - in it there's a list of men's rights issues that make feminists complaints rather flimsy.

* here's an example from Cath Eliott, a year before she started complaining about her treatment from men.

Remember all the left wing threats against Margaret Thatcher? Some from self-proclaimed feminists, too? I remember one -admittedly drunk- female member of the SWP hoping that Margaret Thatcher was raped to death.

When someone who helped run a rape counselling service objected to her remarks, the SWP member had no clue as to what was wrong with what she said.

So, next time someone threatens a female blogger with rape, please do remember it might not be heterosexual rape they are thinking about.

TheNatFantastic said "Is it possible that the right are quicker to use gendered threats of sexual violence?"

No, sir or madam, I don't think it is. To make such a supposition is to accept media stereotypes of what a right-winger is. I consider myself to be a right-winger, but not because of any fondness for violence or threats of violence. The right is correctly about the freedom of the individual, the left is always about the power of the state. Unfortunately, since the 1930's regimes such as Hitler's have erroneously been described as right-wing, but we of the genuine right do not really have swastika-emblazoned leather shorts in our wardrobes, and we do not seek to harm anyone.

Typically, our blog comments are polite and helpful, as befits our thoughtful personalities.

Have a nice day!

xx