Twitter vs Women

[The Porcupine]

I want to hear what people think of this because I either don't understand it, or it's just some women making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Two women in the public eye get abuse on Twitter and call on Twitter to do more to stop these users.

 

There is a 'Report' button which not only reports the user to Twitter and puts them into a queue to be reviewed, but also blocks that user from talking to the blockee.

 

Now, what more do they want? Hundreds of people in the public eye get abused on Twitter daily and you don't hear them bitch and moan. They report and block. SIMPLE.

 

Am I missing something, or are they already doing enough?

[Chester™]

While some of the abuse thats been noted, from various women, is quite shocking, I do wonder - do men not get abused too?

[The Porcupine]

While some of the abuse thats been noted, from various women, is quite shocking, I do wonder - do men not get abused too?

Someone mentioned that on the BBC facebook page. The Twitter UK boss said:

 

Women.

[Peebo]

If you don't want to be cyber-abused by random cretins, don't participate in a forum that allows them to cyber-abuse you.

[I.J]

Tony WANG.

 

[Boaby Ewing]

Was the 'abuse' in question not actually a threat of violent sexual assault?

[I P Knightley]

 

Tiny WANG.

 

 

mmmphmmpwahaha

[Tommy Wiseau]

Was the 'abuse' in question not actually a threat of violent sexual assault?

 

 

Can we clarify this please, as my "women should be doing the ironing and not on twitter" line is dependent on the abuse being nothing serious.

[Juan Rom?n Riquelme]

The people who are paid to write/care about this kind of thing on either side of the equation are generally arseholes who should be ignored until they go away.

[scottish_chicP]

Was the 'abuse' in question not actually a threat of violent sexual assault?

 

Pretty sure it was.

[Hansel]

I've had my twitter account suspended without any explanation whatsoever. I went through the appeals process but after waiting a few days without a reply I'm still not sure what I did.

 

I was rarely on it anyway and I couldn't really get into the swing of it.

 

The only thing I can think of was I made a snide comment to a certain Mr Lennon. Hardly abusive or even remotely aggressive behaviour though.

[Peebo]

Was the 'abuse' in question not actually a threat of violent sexual assault?

 

Shirley the police should be getting involved, in that case.

[rossthejambo]

 

 

 

Shirley the police should be getting involved, in that case.

 

They are involved, sure the boys already been charged.

[Peebo]

 

 

 

They are involved, sure the boys already been charged.

 

Good stuff.

 

If Twitter can't control what people are essentially publishing through its website, then people are probably better off not using it.

[TheOak88]

Why is Twitter getting in trouble then? If the guy has been reported and then arrested, surely due process seems to have been followed?

[Creepy Lurker]

If Twitter have made a commitment to clamp down on such abuse then this looks like something of a storm in a teacup. That said, sexism is still a very live issue in our society; you can see that even just from reading certain threads on here.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I think people should be making more of an issue of the widely available videos of beheadings, child abuse, and violence towards defenseless women on facebook than some dafty arsehole on Twitter threatening to sexually abuse a woman.

 

Both are unacceptable, but Twitter said they'd do something about it, whilst Facebook said it wasn't their problem.

[Rand Paul's Ray Bans]

it's just some women making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Don Draper]

I want to hear what people think of this because I either don't understand it, or it's just some women making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

 

[3fingersreid]

I want to hear what people think of this because I either don't understand it, or it's just some women making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Two women in the public eye get abuse on Twitter and call on Twitter to do more to stop these users.

 

There is a 'Report' button which not only reports the user to Twitter and puts them into a queue to be reviewed, but also blocks that user from talking to the blockee.

 

Now, what more do they want? Hundreds of people in the public eye get abused on Twitter daily and you don't hear them bitch and moan. They report and block. SIMPLE.

 

Am I missing something, or are they already doing enough?

I think when the threat is sexual assault, the placing of bombs at their house and the police telling them to stay overnight at a different address they ain't over reacting

[Eldar Hadzimehmedovic]

Aye, taking issue with someone saying they'll hunt you down and rape you is "women making a mountain out of a molehill".

[The Porcupine]

Aye, taking issue with someone saying they'll hunt you down and rape you is "women making a mountain out of a molehill".

You don't see many other people in the public eye make as much of a deal of threats and generally negative comments on their Twitter feed.

[Groot]

I have to believe you're trolling because if you're not you're one disturbed little ######

[Paolo]

I do not see what Twittee can do. There is a report button and block button already The danger if making it more prominent will be that overly sensitive souls could use it if someone makes a joke or disagrees with them.

 

However, in this case, the women are right to report, as the threats and posts have been shocking and those posting them should be dealt with.

[TheMaganator]

The problem with social media is that it gives a voice to those who should not be heard.

 

I stopped using twitter because if the abuse I took from people of a certain political leaning.

 

There is a report function & the police take things seriously that are posted on there. Or you can block people. Or you can just stop using it. Not much else to say about it.

[Ulysses]

Twitter (and Facebook) come in for criticism because they aren't - for want of a better expression - more like JKB. We have a rule that in effect says you should treat people here in the same way as people should be treated in real life. That doesn't always work, but it works a huge percentage of the time. We would simply have no tolerance whatsoever for someone threatening another member. Twitter doesn't do that to the same extent and nor does Facebook, regardless of what blocking or reporting buttons they have.

 

I wonder as well if some of this is a "clash of cultures". Twitter and Facebook are essentially American inventions, and heavily influenced by a culture that places a very high premium on the right to free speech and self expression. Europeans, on the other hand, give more priority to the effects of what is said on others or on the community generally. In the American cultural mindset, the right to free speech takes priority over any offences or threats caused, and people who don't like what is being said are expected to retort or ignore. In a European context, the "retort or ignore" approach is only valid up to a point. When someone causes significant offence or threatens someone, it's much more acceptable in a European context for websites or the law to take action.

[Ulysses]

The problem with social media is that it gives a voice to those who should not be heard.

 

What? People who don't agree with you?

 

[TheMaganator]

 

 

What? People who don't agree with you?

 

Mainly, yes.

 

But also the type of person who thinks its acceptable to tell somebody on a public forum that they're going to hunt them down and rape them.

[Gorgiewave]

Another difference is that kickback is small enough that 12 mods and a few admins can read everything on the site. Twitter and Facebook have millions of messages per day or hour which only a staff of many thousands could keep up with

[Gorgiewave]

Another difference is that kickback is small enough that 12 mods and a few admins can read everything on the site. Twitter and Facebook have millions of messages per day or hour which only a staff of many thousands could keep up with

[Ulysses]

Another difference is that kickback is small enough that 12 mods and a few admins can read everything on the site. Twitter and Facebook have millions of messages per day or hour which only a staff of many thousands could keep up with

 

It always comes down to money, doesn't it?

 

 

[Gizmo]

MODEDIT

 

Complaining about 100s of "you're going to be raped" messages an hour is NOT demanding special treatment.

 

Ultra-feminists who come out with clap-trap like "men pee standing up because women can't" or the old "all men/penetration is rape" gubbins are the ones you want to have a pop at, not someone who just wants to be treated fairly.

[Gorgiewave]

I have met two feminazis in my life. Both thought that "patriarchy" was the worst of all evils and the most prevalent. Holding a door open is a grave offence. They had in common: general insecurity; hurt at having been dumped by men; frustration at not reaching the top professionally, having brains but not enough nous.

 

Both were also comfortably off, highly-educated and strongly supported by their fathers.

 

 

[redm]

I don't really get what the #twittersilence today is supposed to achieve but I do understand their frustration and their need to act in some way. They're not moaning about general abuse, they're moaning (quite rightly!) about serious threats of rape and all manner of other things. As mentioned already, I'm not sure how much Twitter can realistically do about it but there does have to be some sort of action taken.

 

Fortunately the UK police take this sort of stuff pretty seriously but there has to be some sort of effective engagement from Twitter too.

 

For those who haven't read about it, this is how it all really kicked off: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10207231/Woman-who-campaigned-for-Jane-Austen-bank-note-receives-Twitter-death-threats.html

 

And Cade - that post is a total shocker. What a load of nonsense.

[redm]

I have met two feminazis in my life. Both thought that "patriarchy" was the worst of all evils and the most prevalent. Holding a door open is a grave offence. They had in common: general insecurity; hurt at having been dumped by men; frustration at not reaching the top professionally, having brains but not enough nous.

 

Both were also comfortably off, highly-educated and strongly supported by their fathers.

 

You can't label the entire feminist movement and associated ideologies like that because of two individuals you once met. The "extremists" aren't representative of the majority, quite the opposite.

 

The idea that there must be something wrong with them or that they must have suffered in some specific way in order to have these beliefs is also ridiculous. Feminists aren't all bra burning, man hating lesbians either I'm afraid.

[Gorgiewave]

Redm, I didn't say all feminists. The man-hating, patriarchy-blaming mentality does exist, among a minority. They might be called radical feminists, third-wave feminists, or paranoid, given how easily they attribute so many problems to "patriarchy" without evidence.

[redm]

Which problems are you referring to though?

[Gorgiewave]

Any ill in society. Class is male (capital-owning) oppression of women (wage labourers at best), religion is a conspiracy to achieve the same ends, political organisation is designed by men, education repeats it, etc. This does exist, isn't that common and is commoner in universities than in other places.

[Gorgiewave]

Redm: the first page I found: Stieg Larsson, the memorable feminist and "exposer" of sexual violence and sex trafficking accused of "prurience".

 

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/

[Gorgiewave]

http://radicalhubarchives.wordpress.com/

[Creepy Lurker]

Every political movement has a lunatic fringe. I don't see the relevance.

[Gorgiewave]

I'm responding to those who responded to Cade.

[redm]

Any ill in society. Class is male (capital-owning) oppression of women (wage labourers at best), religion is a conspiracy to achieve the same ends, political organisation is designed by men, education repeats it, etc. This does exist, isn't that common and is commoner in universities than in other places.

 

Ah, well some of those ideas don't sound all that crazy to me. I'm not particularly fond of the more extreme version of feminism but I do agree that if we had to weigh it up like that, most institutions, organisations, practices and systems in our culture and society are shaped to protect and further the interests of men. Historically, men have been the key decision-makers at nearly every level in every influential part of society and while significant changes have been made in this respect in the last 30 odd years or so, it takes a long long time to embed a permanent culture shift. I don't necessarily think it's a conscious conspiracy (not all the time anyway), it's just what happens when you find the less powerful challenging the dominant status quo. People don't really like change all that much.

 

I definitely buy into the issue of religion being a device for oppressing women. Many years ago it wouldn't have been considered oppressive to promote a particular role for women and enshrine it in religious "moral codes", people didn't look at the world in the same way. They do now though. Some religions are more progressive than others in this respect but you don't even have to look to Sharia law and all that jazz for examples, the more familiar "love, honour and obey" vow is still alive and kicking.

 

I don't believe there are factions who truly think all society's ills are the result of male privilege or established supremacy, I think that's just a convenient stick with which many like to beat the more assertive feminist thinkers. Even if they do exist in numbers, I'd still prefer to hear what they say over listening to the hands-over-ears "gender equality isn't an issue in modern times/they're all paranoid men haters/see these uppity women" mob. It's a complex issue.

[Gorgiewave]

See the links, redm. They do exist, but are a minority. I think a woman in the western world nowadays who can go to university, travel the world, be straight, lesbian or bisexual, read the internet, travel the world and control her own fertility (a good percentage of them) have a better deal than any women in history, except perhaps queens. These tend to be the radical feminist whiners and paranoiacs.

[Creepy Lurker]

I'm responding to those who responded to Cade.

 

Cade was talking about feminists in general. He didn't specify that he was only talking about a minority of feminists.

 

We're talking about women taking exception to threats of rape. Why do you consider this to be relevant?

[redm]

See the links, redm. They do exist, but are a minority. I think a woman in the western world nowadays who can go to university, travel the world, be straight, lesbian or bisexual, read the internet, travel the world and control her own fertility (a good percentage of them) have a better deal than any women in history, except perhaps queens. These tend to be the radical feminist whiners and paranoiacs.

 

I don't think Royals (if that's who you meant) have a good deal in that respect at all, in many ways they have far fewer freedoms than the average Jane.

And women shouldn't be satisfied or grateful just because things are better now than they were in the past. That's just nuts.

 

Rightly or wrongly, this tiny minority of seriously radical feminists don't have much of a voice, never mind having any influence. Therefore I find it funny that so many choose to focus on them rather than on the more popular, level headed, carefully crafted and evidence based feminist arguments. It just fudges the issue, it's also rather convenient.

[Mr Romanov Saviour of HMFC]

See the links, redm. They do exist, but are a minority. I think a woman in the western world nowadays who can go to university, travel the world, be straight, lesbian or bisexual, read the internet, travel the world and control her own fertility (a good percentage of them) have a better deal than any women in history, except perhaps queens. These tend to be the radical feminist whiners and paranoiacs.

 

This is true. I always get the feeling women today feel the need to carry on the real fights that women years ago faced, when it clearly isn't the same world now.

 

Dunno if anyone has seen this Caitlan Moran person but what an arsehole she is. She is one of the leaders of this twitter silence nonsense despite threatening to cut off Limmy's penis

[Creepy Lurker]

Some crazy arguments here.

 

Things are better than they used to be, so it's time to stop campaigning.

 

Some feminists are paranoid, so the entire movement is discredited.

 

Wow.

[Fermit the Krog]

Cracking troll from Cade.

 

Respect.

[redm]

This is true. I always get the feeling women today feel the need to carry on the real fights that women years ago faced, when it clearly isn't the same world now.

 

Dunno if anyone has seen this Caitlan Moran person but what an arsehole she is. She is one of the leaders of this twitter silence nonsense despite threatening to cut off Limmy's penis

 

I can see why she gets up people's noses sometimes but generally, she's pretty spot on with a lot of what she says IMO. This Twitter protest does seem misguided and steeped in celebrity snobbery but I also don't know what the right reaction would have been either.

 

Totally disagree on women attaching themselves to problems of the past though. It's not the same world that the Pankhursts and Davis lived in but it's nowhere near perfect in a gender equality sense either. This line of argument totally smacks of the whole "just be grateful we gave you the vote, ok? Jesus, what more do you women want" type of thinking.