This seems to be the new PC distraction from real issues to irritate voters.

lol. ;)

Here's another news flash:

Apparently people say mean things on the internet. According to many feminists, misogyny exists not only in the real world, but on the internet as well. It's known as "VM" Virtual Misogyny, and it's devastating the nation.

Never mind health-care, the environment and global warming, your pocketbook, war and peace, rampant obesity and diabetes truly devastating American quality of life, nuclear proliferation, the housing bubble, rampant foreclosures, predatory economics and institutionalized poverty, the FED helping big lenders fleece the public, the national debt, US industrial bankruptcy, outsourcing, China, the education gap, the energy crisis, aging infrastructure and falling behind other developed nations, terrorism, corruption, political corruption, private sector corruption, the judiciary, corruption of the judiciary and the DoJ, and certainly forget about misandry, etc, etc, etc. and on and on.

Forget all that shit and drop everything. There is misogyny on the internet. Now go get all lathered up and chase your tails people. Now!

I hadn't realized credible death threats don't qualify as a "real issue".

Thanks for the enlightenment, kozmik!

Hmmm...I think I'll look to see if I can find any real problems....

*google*

Let's see...

In 2005, there were 191,670 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assaults according to the 2005 National Crime Victimization Survey

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

That's approximately 1 per every 1600 people.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/rape.htm

In contrast, there is about 1 homicide per 20,000 people.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

But violence done to women is just a distraction from "real issues".

lol. That was hilarious. Apparently "death threats" are rampant on the internet and a serious risk to women. (how do you even feel safe to post here? You must be soooo courageous.)

I was wondering what started all those problems I mentioned, and that's where I totally failed to connect the dots. They all started with misogyny, so they're all the same problem. Of course. It all makes such perfect sense!

Why nitpick at derivative issues like "war and peace" or "health-care" or "the environment" anyways? Pfft. Just go to the source of all evil: misogyny and meanness.

Why, if we could just solve that, all the other problems would fix themselves. What a brilliant revelation!

So how could we accomplish this... hmmm. maybe we could write some songs about "needing only Love" or something like that, and maybe we could experiment with chemicals that make people more happy and tranquil... possibly wear more earth tone clothing, let our hair down, avoid competitive and violent sports, and try to be less materialistic.

Most importantly, we have to really drill this into people!

Yes! I think that's it. Surely such a sweeping cultural change would usher in a new era. Many decades of prosperity, peace, and liberalism, with nary a hate monger or conservative to be found anywhere!

Death threats are rampant on the internet!! Serious Death Threats! Be very afraid!

(no really. I know you don't see any, but who you gonna believe, EJ Graf or your lying eyes?)

All of these issues are important including misogyny. Are you rational? Stop getting your shorts in a bunch.

Tom

Considering that

1) I don't have a well-trafficed, highly-visible blog
2) I don't go through comments on blog/forum sites where I expect the responses to be inane
3) I don't have the time, means, or desire to read every single comment posted on the web every day

I think I'll believe someone who can reasonably be expected to have first-hand experience of such. Because assuming everything is a conspiracy is, to be blunt, idiotic.

btw, I should add, your post is the most unsubstantiated and alarmist doodoo ever.

I don't like to use the term, because it's often applied to people on the left who are perfectly cogent and concerned about legitimate issue, but the fact remains there is a small minority of fringe people on the left who are just paranoid and alarmist "tinfoil" hats types. They wind up hurting the left far more than they help.

For example, tree campers and monkey wrenches have done far more harm to environmentalism than help. Chronically angst ridden lesbian feminists have done far more harm to feminism than help. Hippies did far more harm to liberalism than help. Etc.

I don't know why TPM has such PC but substance free authors like EJ Graf. While Josh is usually right on, he does hop on the PC bandwagon now and then. Take his stance on WMD and Iraq war for example, which was very much a PC thing on the left at the time. He usually winds up regretting it. I know it must be hard to resist, and I have to give Josh credit for being on the bleeding edge but...

One thing I like about Sy Hersh for example of a journalist who has stayed pretty relevant and maintained integrity better than most over the years, is he resisted selling out and trying to be all things to all people. I think that's the biggest lure to PC-dom and becoming a phony: trying to be all things to all people.

I think that's where a lot of expanding BLOGS go wrong. Instead of staying somewhat specialized, they try to create a salon for all things, and they invariably start publishing token authors and checking of PC boxes.

Did you miss the fact that EJ Graff was noting the LINK between online mysogyny and violent threats and things that actually happen in women's day-to-day lives??!! I find your posts offensive--no one even suggested we ignore other social problems, and to suggest that dealing with this serious social ill (violence against women) is a waste of time and that it precludes us from dealing with other issues is just dumb. But maybe you just don't think it's important that women and people of color feel safe walking down the streets or going to work.

Ah... Do you have any hard, substantiated, data you can cite? Read critically much? I could read Ann Coulter's book too if I just want to read unsubstantiated claims. Judith Miller wrote oin the NYT front page, repeatedly, that Iraq was full of WMD, and she didn't substantiate anything.

Anybody with an agenda can write a column or book, most are complete BS, and just reinforce what people want to believe without any hard data.

Regardless, what does the internet or EJ Grafs's article have to do with it? It's a complete non sequitur to lump together. May as well drag violent video games into the mix if we're going to be so totally vague.

I think we'd all admit that a certain percentage of men are violent psychopaths, and that this is a high enough percentage that it shouldn't surprise us to find them, in the thousands, on the Net. But what truly shocks me is how many para-psychopaths there are. Every time you see one of these threads there's at least one cold-hearted creep who chides us for being overly PC and attacks the victims for being too sensitive and for not being tough enough to take the heat ... "like a man."

In some ways, these para-psychopaths are scarier because at least with the real thing you can call the police, have their Internet address tracked down, and, one hopes, get them off the streets (and the Net) for a few years. The para-psychopaths, on the other hand, are beyond any solution. Some, I suppose, are educable. Most, unfortunately, will die just as cruel, ignorant and loathsome as they are today.

It's a small pleasure, but it was fun giving this thread's victim-abuser a bunch of big fat zeros.

Y'know, without agreeing with Kozmik at all, I'm just going to say that some things are simply never acceptable... ever.

There's a lot of violent mouthy trolls on the internet, and a lot of them seem all that more willing to get vile and vulgar and make threats if they have a feeling that the person on the other side isn't prepared to kick their teeth in.

The fact that they're trolling a woman brings out the worst in them. Talking about women brings out the worst in them.

A few charges and jail terms, or maybe a lot, would do a lot to civilize the bunch of them up.

The fact is that fear can be a fact of life for some people. I've seen it happen. Kids terrified of school because of gangs, old people afraid to go down the street. America is a country where the well to do live in gated communities and hire security guards for office buildings. Don't tell me that America isn't about the fear. You fuckers live and breath fear, you marinate in it.

No one makes a death threat, directly or indirectly, so they can watch themselves type. They're out there putting out that fear. They put fear in people they think are vulnerable, and that fear is there cause just once in a while, some of them follow through.

I don't think its respectful of anyone to mock women's fear, particularly when other folks are working so hard to inflict it. I particularly don't think its respectful not to take that fear seriously or say get over it, particularly when all the rest of your society seems so thoroughly fear based.

When you leave your house, Kozmik, do you lock it? Do you go for walks in urban downtowns at night? Do you get a little nervous walking past some streetwise ghetto youth hanging out? Does the building where you work have security guards? Does the apartment building where you live have security cameras? Do you live in a gated community? Are there security guards at the mall? Sounds like you're living in the lap of fear to me.

Look at it this way Kosmik. You're a guy, that entitles you to some privileges. Among these privileges is a lot more upper body strength, a lot more confidence and security. You've never had to worry about someone shoving their cock into your body against your will. You've never had to worry about being in a situation where everyone is stronger and more aggressive and less vulnerable than you. It gives a degree of security, you know what I mean? It gives you a baseline of security, a sort of permanent level of comfort.

But let me ask you something. Supposing you wound up pissing off some Hells Angels, or some big black rough looking guys. Supposing that you knew these guys had a reputation for violence, that any one of them could kick your ass, and worse, from prison, they really enjoyed shoving their cocks up their victims... sort of to make a point.

Suppose one of these guys wrote to you and said that they were going to do you. Suppose you got an anonymous email that you were dead certain was from one of these guys.

That's fear, bud.

Show a little respect.

I would recommend ignoring kozmik and carrying on the conversation as if kozmik isn't here. That will stop the wasting of a lot of time and energy and will keep the focus on this important issue.

Tom

I think that's a great piece. A lot of the coverage of Imus did fail to acknowledge his words as sexist too. And I think he brings up an important issue about using an event like this as a catalyst for public dialogue on the tough issues.

Of course, I thought we were destined to have a public discussion about race after Katrina, and that didn't happen.

It's all self referential. It's one exaggeration used to "substantiate" another. It's her bread and butter.

Really, what's the difference between an Al Sharpton and someone like EJ Graf? Not much.

When you talk to accomplished women and accomplished blacks, people who made it in fields like the sciences, business, etc, they all seem to agree: yes there is still misogyny and racism, but it has gotten better, and more than anything people need to develop a healthy attitude, keep moving forward, and try and transcend the BS.

The only people you hear constantly making the worst of things, constantly stoking angst, are people who make a living feeding off the angst. Stoking it and stoking it because it makes them viable as media figures. And what they spread isn't positive change, or smart actions, it's angst and symbolic political action that is often so self defeating it should be called political in-action by in-activists.

Take Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of HP for example. When she was successful at the top of her game, she spoke about the opportunities for women. But as soon as she was fired she wrote a book claiming it was sexism to a large degree. A lot of feminists who never cared much about her suddenly couldn't get enough of her, because she verified what they're always saying.

Was it sexism, or was it the fact she tried to completely reverse HP culture and created a backlash? She didn't make HP a kinder gentler company, she made it more ruthless and instituted massive "cost cutting" and layoffs. Previously, under the presumably "misogynistic" executives, HP was one of the most progressive companies in America. If profits were down, they didn't lay off people, everybody took a pay cut. The stock was unstable under her leadership, which will put any CEO in hot water. Now I'm not saying one strategy is economically better than the other, that's not the point.

The point is Carly Fiorina was more Margret Thatcher than Indira Gandhi, she totally went against the HP culture, and created stock instability, which would create a backlash against any CEO. Instead of dealing with that, she takes advantage of the culture war to holler "misogyny" which was just shameful, and sent the wrong message to a lot of aspiring women.

It was all for the glorification and profit of Carly Fiorina. She's not helping women, she betrayed women.

She was positive one day inspiring women to opportunities, crying misogyny and encouraging angst the next. Succeed on her merits one minute, stoke angst and sell books the next.

People like EJ Graf do the same thing. They stoke this angst and feed off it for a living.

They wind up hurting the left far more than they help...

One thing I like about Sy Hersh for example of a journalist...

I think that's where a lot of expanding BLOGS go wrong...

Dissent Protects Democracy.

His body of work here has also included zeroing out others' comments.

Only three weeks, and he's already been such a positive contributor to our blog. 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

Why, is that what you were attempting to accomplish in that post? I think you nailed it, with hypocrisy for the bonus!

I completely agree with you that these are serious problems in our society that need to be dealt with in a serious manner. At the beginning of your post you point out the sneering negative reaction females often get when attempting to bring these problems to light. I agree that happens and much too often. It is also true though that while true and sincere, many times the tone and approach one brings to the table can be predicted to draw that sort of reaction from many. Far too often their seems to be a weird mix of feminism with an almost victorian superiority that is quite off-putting and distracts readers/listeners from the important points that are, in fact, being made. It's just one of those realities that anyone or any group has to face up to if it wants to communicate effectively outside it's own circle of like minds. Whenever that self-righteous victorian-like tone gets rolled out many people recoil and write off the content. The same message, presented in a different way would get a very different reaction in many, if not all, cases. It's not just a problem for feminists, but liberals and lefties in general I'm afraid, often face this difficulty. You want the masses with you? Then speak to them and not down to them.