See You Later, Online Hater
There's been a lot of discussion about how best to regulate online hate speech this year. For example, on YouTube several months ago, there was discussion about holding an official "Hug a Hater" week, complete with user-generated public service announcements illustrated by spoon puppets and embraces of foul-mouthed spectators wearing paper bags with faces drawn upon them "Unknown Comic" style.
As feminist critics in the Blogosphere have been pointing out, hate speech can be no laughing matter, particularly if Web 2.0 really offers the "community" it promises (and which the Internet itself has been promising for decades). The Yale Law Journal has a call for papers about Internet Harassment, and The Washington Post has reported on how "Sexual Threats Stifle Some Female Bloggers."
In my own interactions with hostile readers, I've been surprised by the fact that the people who most aggressively disagree with me tend to use the backchannel of e-mailing me directly via my university address. I suppose that's not surprising, since I make no secret of who I am, but I am always startled when these relatively one-sided exchanges pop up in my "in" box. These readers have been universally male and often the defenders of an explicitly masculine identity as well, in that they are often reacting to my feminist readings of digital artifacts associated with institutions like the Boy Scouts of America or the U.S. Army. So I often feel a bit discomforted by the way that these readers also might try to reinforce gender norms in our discourse, for example, by commenting on my appearance in my Blogger photo or suggesting that if I were a face-to-face neighbor we might have tea together. In general, I prefer public debates to private ones, and I publish almost all comments on Virtualpolitik, even some hateful ones, in the interests of promoting free speech. Sometimes I will get as many as a dozen e-mails from these disgruntled correspondents, many of which I answer with my best bureaucratic politeness/humor, before the reader becomes invested enough in their feud with me to post a comment publicly but -- strangely -- always anonymously. By then, of course, their words have also dropped off the main page and relegated to the archive. (For more on the social practices of the backchannel, see this piece by Jenny Cool.)
As feminist critics in the Blogosphere have been pointing out, hate speech can be no laughing matter, particularly if Web 2.0 really offers the "community" it promises (and which the Internet itself has been promising for decades). The Yale Law Journal has a call for papers about Internet Harassment, and The Washington Post has reported on how "Sexual Threats Stifle Some Female Bloggers."
In my own interactions with hostile readers, I've been surprised by the fact that the people who most aggressively disagree with me tend to use the backchannel of e-mailing me directly via my university address. I suppose that's not surprising, since I make no secret of who I am, but I am always startled when these relatively one-sided exchanges pop up in my "in" box. These readers have been universally male and often the defenders of an explicitly masculine identity as well, in that they are often reacting to my feminist readings of digital artifacts associated with institutions like the Boy Scouts of America or the U.S. Army. So I often feel a bit discomforted by the way that these readers also might try to reinforce gender norms in our discourse, for example, by commenting on my appearance in my Blogger photo or suggesting that if I were a face-to-face neighbor we might have tea together. In general, I prefer public debates to private ones, and I publish almost all comments on Virtualpolitik, even some hateful ones, in the interests of promoting free speech. Sometimes I will get as many as a dozen e-mails from these disgruntled correspondents, many of which I answer with my best bureaucratic politeness/humor, before the reader becomes invested enough in their feud with me to post a comment publicly but -- strangely -- always anonymously. By then, of course, their words have also dropped off the main page and relegated to the archive. (For more on the social practices of the backchannel, see this piece by Jenny Cool.)
Labels: blogging, feminism, free speech, youtube rhetoric
posted by Liz Losh at 9:15 AM
9 Comments:
The gender angle seems quite appropriate. Though victims of hater aren't gender-specific, it's quite likely that the same male haters who bash on women posters rarely take on male targets.
Yeah. I guess it's behavior that I just don't get.
I wouldn't bother hurling nasty comments or vituperative e-mail at some right-wing anti-scientific anti-humanist blogger dude.
And, as it turns out, I'm quite careful with this same RWASAHBD. Not out of fear of reprisals. But because I haven't found a way to "hate on" people forcefully enough to get the other person to understand.
I also get tired of flamewars fairly quickly.
Must be because I'm a linguistic anthropologist... (And a shameless self-promoter!)
Interesting that you only post people that agree with you. And your statments of 'exclusively masculine' are only mentioned because of your complete bias against men and thinking they should cater to women and your equal, but better mentality.
what?
I'm confused by the claim that I only post comments from people who agree with me. I love comments from people who think I have misrepresented the issue! I've posted dozens -- if not hundreds -- of hostile comments.
Wow, if somebody disagrees with you, there comments are automatically hostile. You really need to recheck your beliefs and attitude- and grow up! Nobody is scared of you or your stupidity.
I am an advocate of Men's rights and Father's rights. The reason your "feminist" beliefs,( which is a misnomer, because you are using that as a safe, polically correct word, to cover your bigotry and blatant sexism), are being attacked is because you fail to see areas in society, both legal and social, where women are treated far better than men. You want to make it where men who are fighting for their rights are immediately silenced and treated as if their views are invalid, which they are not. You are stating how angry comments should be stopped, but only if they are from males and against your views, which are prejudiced and disgusting. You attack institutions for males, such as Boy Scouts of America, because you believe the world should center around women and the education of boys should be training for inferiorty to females. Yes, your picture gets attacked because we are shocked there is no Nazi flag behind you staring off into the distance with your eyes full of misandry and ignorance, as if you are some sort of intellectual.
I must say that after reviewing the comments to you and then researching your past blogs/writings, there are reasons you would be receiving criticisms from people. No matter how you try to cover prejudice, people will evenetually be aware of your actions and motivs. There is a great danger in going with "political correctness." It creates more prejudice and hate. It is a short-cut to thinking. I realize you were just following the current day flow, but what did hating half the population get you Liz? And how did you not understand that you were doing the exact same thing you were claiming to be against? It really is scary that these kinds of beliefs are being taught to young women and men on college campuses. It is amusing to see your title of this piece as it applies to you dear.
Post a Comment
<< Home