Why are you feminists always complaining?
My response to Chris Dillow.
By Helen Lewis Published 09 July 2012 17:00
Now, Chris Dillow is an interesting blogger, and one I read regularly. So I was a bit surprised to stumble upon this paragraph at the end of a post about economic research which might be interesting to feminists.
It's rather sad that it takes a sexist old dinosaur like me to point out things like this. But then, when feminists confine themselves to complaining about people being mentally ill, or whining about the frustrations of careerist egomaniacs, someone has to point to proper social science.
When the cost to men and women of talking about sexism on the internet is the same, men and women will talk about sexism the same. Until then, it is incredibly rude to mock feminists for trying to address the violent backlash they are currently facing.
For me (and I realize this might be an idiosyncratic view) the sole purpose of writing is to say something interesting. I just don't find "threatening behaviour is wrong" a terribly interesting statement. By all means, report it to the police, campaign against it and even fight back personally. But for my tastes, writing about it is boring.
Hi Chris,As the author of that post you say is limiting the horizons of feminism, I thought I should respond.I found your comment dismissive - because I'm experiencing it in the context of the fact that anything I write about feminist issues attracts a certain subset of comments about how I am "whining" or "complaining"; this is often coupled with helpful advice about the things I *should* be writing about, usually from people who show no apparent interest in those things, except as a metaphorical stick to hit me with.One of the reasons I write regularly about online abuse/trolling/harassment (or, as I guess you'd have it, "confine myself to" writing about it) is because a staggering amount of people aren't aware that it exists, and are grateful to be made aware of it.If I were to flip your comment round, I'm sure there are lots of people who think that YOU writing "economic inequality is bad" isn't particularly interesting. But that's not what I think - I think that you're outlining interesting phenomena and explaining them to your audience. Which is exactly what I'm trying to do.I also query your use of the description "mentally ill". Have a look at the online presence of the man who created the "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" game. His Twitter account, for example, shows an apparently well adjusted young man. The same can be said of many of those arrested over cases of racist Twitter abuse.Lastly, I really do believe that the type of abuse I'm writing about is an important subject for feminists. Look at Anita Sarkeesian - she wanted to talk about something related to feminism, and there was a concerted attempt to silence her. I get emails from other women who've given up writing because of this kind of stuff.Hope that explains my reaction.Helen
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















15 comments
It is really terrible that its come to this. There is many good men and women, but this constant fighting that is increasing between men and women really needs to stop. I think women are pushing and pushing and pushing. Men are oftentimes victims too. I went and read about the young lady that was abused online and very sad. What you cannot do is reason with hate, and that is what women try to do and then failing there they end up arguing with these people, which only gets these kind of guys riled up more.
The problem I see with all of this is the coming societal break down when the Final Economic collapse happens in the near future. By demonizing all these men, and constantly presenting women as victim, which we all know is NOT true, you are creating a future scenario that is not pretty for women. Have you seen what happens to women in desperate times? The government won't be there to help you and most likely it will devolve into community "justice". Look what happen to the Russian women, those in Africa.
First off the womans movement went in the wrong direction. It was fine in the beginning but was quickly co-opted by CIA funded Gloria Steinem types. It pressed women to be like men and suddenly we had a full blown "sexual revolution" on our hands. That is what it was called. But really it was a sinister way of destroying the psyche of women. Instead of focusing on Cooperation, compassion, unity, and other feminine characteristics, AS JUST AS IMPORTANT as male characteristics, the movement focused on women's bodies and pleasure. These are actually all for males, but women were duped into thinking this movement was for THEM. It is cruel how this happened. Feelings and emotions were over emphasized (and to this day the political class use emotional avenues to propagandize and manipulate consensus).
Don't fight these guys. Ignore it. If it gets real bad (threats are illegal) take legal action. Go into blogs like political or economic and sign up with a male-oriented name, and post comments that are female friendly. If they can use tactics then do the same thing. More people viewing positive feedback on women by a man, it then spreads.... Stop writing about just Female interest subjects, like sex and drapes and cookies. Start thinking about politics and using rational arguments supporting your views. The point is, the less emotion and ego you use the more you will be taken seriously and viewed as an "equal".
It is obvious that "C. Hanna" is a man, & one who not only does not want to recognize the very real problems women have that are not actually faced by men on nearly the same scale, but doesn't want to accept that it is the men who must take responsibility for their own behavior & change it - no one can change it for them. He proves it himself when he exposes himself as a troll, right down the end: "Stop writing about just Female interest subjects, like sex and drapes and cookies. Start thinking about politics and using rational arguments supporting your views. The point is, the less emotion and ego you use the more you will be taken seriously and viewed as an "equal". " No "rational argument" *there*, just childish opinion & hate.
I'd be willing to bet that most of the boys and men that indulge in these sexist online gang rapey campaigns are no more mentally ill than most rapists are monsters.
No, they are just ordinary people who live and work alongside you. You're probably related to sme of them. It's convenient to label them mentally ill because it means you don't have to engage with what they're doing or where it's coming from - if they are insane then society is sane and okay.
The thing I think needs to be written about on this subject is the disparity in the anti-hate legislation. The reason that racist, anti-Semitic, disablist, and arguably homophobic hate campaigns are relatively fewer and less destructive than sexist ones is because race, sexuality,disability and even religion (which is qualitively different to the other things mentioned, being a changeable allegiance, not an unchangeable characteristic) are protected characteristics under the anti hate law. Sex/Gender is not. It really is as simple as that. Women, men, transgendered people have no special recourse under the law against discriminatory hate propaganda and the hate propagandists either know this explicitly or implicitly.
It's no coincidence that the cases of hate speech in social media that have been prosecuted so far are racist ones, but that when it came to making a legal stand against orchestrated misogyny, it was necessary to use privacy laws and wait for a far worse example of it.
This is also, in my view, why people are so confused about what constitutes acceptable depictions of women in the media while they are crystal clear on acceptable depictions of racial and religious groups etc. And why we still struggle to identify harmful pornography.
I am becoming increasingly angry about this sexism at the heart of equality legislation.
One tiny disagreement: people who are antisemitic do not hate Jews because of "religion"; their hatred is racist in nature. While it is a curious coincidence that Judaism also holds that Jews can never stop being Jews (I could explain fully, but this is not a site on religion), antisemites treat Jews as a race, as proven by their belittling use of the incorrect terms "half Jew", "part Jew"; their careful harping on whether someone they hate has Jewish ancestry, is a secret Jew - "passing", as it were.
I post this not to try to "show you up" or even "correct" you - in fact, my points bolster yours (which I agree completely): he only non-mutable characteristic that is not protected anywhere is gender. & I think we can all guess why.
I for one am extremely grateful that you write about this subject and continue to do so. There is alot to say about it, as it takes many forms, comes from many places, has many causes and motivations and is not being dealt with effectively. I sure as hell find it a lot more interesting than reading men talk about the economy ad nauseum. Surely everything that could've said about money has already been said - more than once.
"sorry if I have you e impression I was being dismissive". Lying old economist more like.
"His Twitter account, for example, shows an apparently well adjusted young man. The same can be said of many of those arrested over cases of racist Twitter abuse."
Oh Jesus....another online pop-psychologist, drawing conclusions about people's personalities from what they post. It wouldn't surprise me if someone read this article and concluded the author was a serial whiner...based on the 'evidence'.
''Have a look at the online presence of the man who created the "beat up Anita Sarkeesian" game. His Twitter account, for example, shows an apparently well adjusted young man.''
I'd suggest that was a contradiction in terms on the basis that anyone who cares enough about Anita Sarkeesian and what she is attempting to do so much so that they go to the time and trouble to create a 'beat up Sarkeesian game' is clearly not well adjusted on several levels.
Hi Helen
Sorry if I gave the impression of being dismissive; I didn't intend to. I fear I was insufficiently insensitive to context; I'm an autistic economist.
I was merely trying to point out (clumsily it seems), without sounding like one of the men against sexism types, that feminists have many good arguments to make - more than generally supposed. They/you should be demanding much more than basic decency; there are Overton window issues here.
For now - I'm prepared to be swayed by scientific evidence - I'll stick by the "mentally ill" point; men who fantasize about beating women up are, pretty much by definition, mentally ill.
Best wishes
C
Helen here - thanks for the response, Chris. Good of you to take the time.
'advice about the things I *should* be writing about, usually from people who show no apparent interest in those things, '.
well said helen!
the fact is we shouldn't have to be writing about it. the fact that some men choose to throw hate language at us when we write *anything* shows that it is an important issue that needs to be spoken about, challenged and exposed.
you rock.
Helen here - that's always an argument I struggle with (along with "don't feed the trolls"). I don't think there's anyone who does this kind of thing who doesn't already know that it works. Of course bullying people hurts them. Of course posting someone's personal details online intimidates them.
"I get emails from other women who've given up writing because of this kind of stuff. "
With respect Helen, this tells the sort of miscreant that berates women for having the temerity to speak up that attacking them will eventually silence them.
No offence ...