Lindy West, unabashed SJW, in a post on the Daily Dot today, challenges the notion of Internet "neutrality," and predicts that if social media site owners like Facebook, Youtube and Twitter refuse to protect their users from harassment and intimidation, others will take their place.
And she means to win this "culture war," too:
There’s only one thing, really. I want a site with a fucking backbone. I
want a site that has an ideology, that is explicitly feminist and
anti-racist, that is proactively progressive and cares more about users than their abusers.
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label internet. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Friday, April 25, 2014
Thanks for Noticing
Bonald at Throne and Altar posted thoughtfully about the "catfight" between Sunshine Mary, Lena, and Laura that has got half the manosphere chirping like an aviary full of parakeets. (See also Jim's Blog for a measured response to SSM's "doxing" and manospherean reaction.)
Identifying "The Real Danger to Pseudonymous Bloggers," Bonald concludes:
So anyway, if you’re writing an anti-feminist blog, your main danger of being outed or made the target of hostile internet campaigns comes from the lunatic wing of the manosphere, not from actual feminists.
True, and thanks for acknowledging it. Whether a female blogger is a "feminist" or an "anti-feminist," the real danger (of being doxxed, maligned and harassed) is from the manosphereans. Blogging-while-female is asking for trouble, regardless of which team you're playing on.
What is "the real danger" of being doxxed and maligned, even libeled online? The potential consequences are widely acknowledged to be so severe that most people consider doxxing their ideological opponents beyond the moral pale. The intersection between one's "online persona" and one's public face is a fragile membrane; in some cases, it is a horrific car crash just waiting to happen.
Being doxxed online is, in a way, to suffer the exposure of celebrity with none of its perks. It's disconcerting, at least, to know that thousands of people can identify you, while you have no way of knowing who they are. (Of course, I am not suggesting that thousands of people care who I am; in fact, it's obvious that they do not.)
The greatest threat to the victim is the possibility of suffering bodily harm or exposing one's children to physical harm (or humiliation). The fact that it is statistically unlikely does not lessen the psychological impact of the threat.
If you're blogging under a pseudonym, you'd better be prepared to be identified with the material you post in your personal and professional life, and be willing for your family members to be identified with it as well, because you are just one "Matt Forney" away from having to slap your John Hancock on it forever.
Being doxxed and my name linked to a "character assassination" was a personal violation that I would not wish on anyone, no matter how abhorrent I found his or her opinions. But I'm also very fortunate.
I'm fortunate in that there is little that I have posted here that could ruin my professional or personal reputation. Indeed, I live so transparently that there is little here that would surprise anyone who knows me. That's probably why my blog is kind of boring...
Identifying "The Real Danger to Pseudonymous Bloggers," Bonald concludes:
So anyway, if you’re writing an anti-feminist blog, your main danger of being outed or made the target of hostile internet campaigns comes from the lunatic wing of the manosphere, not from actual feminists.
True, and thanks for acknowledging it. Whether a female blogger is a "feminist" or an "anti-feminist," the real danger (of being doxxed, maligned and harassed) is from the manosphereans. Blogging-while-female is asking for trouble, regardless of which team you're playing on.
What is "the real danger" of being doxxed and maligned, even libeled online? The potential consequences are widely acknowledged to be so severe that most people consider doxxing their ideological opponents beyond the moral pale. The intersection between one's "online persona" and one's public face is a fragile membrane; in some cases, it is a horrific car crash just waiting to happen.
Being doxxed online is, in a way, to suffer the exposure of celebrity with none of its perks. It's disconcerting, at least, to know that thousands of people can identify you, while you have no way of knowing who they are. (Of course, I am not suggesting that thousands of people care who I am; in fact, it's obvious that they do not.)
The greatest threat to the victim is the possibility of suffering bodily harm or exposing one's children to physical harm (or humiliation). The fact that it is statistically unlikely does not lessen the psychological impact of the threat.
If you're blogging under a pseudonym, you'd better be prepared to be identified with the material you post in your personal and professional life, and be willing for your family members to be identified with it as well, because you are just one "Matt Forney" away from having to slap your John Hancock on it forever.
Being doxxed and my name linked to a "character assassination" was a personal violation that I would not wish on anyone, no matter how abhorrent I found his or her opinions. But I'm also very fortunate.
I'm fortunate in that there is little that I have posted here that could ruin my professional or personal reputation. Indeed, I live so transparently that there is little here that would surprise anyone who knows me. That's probably why my blog is kind of boring...
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Studies Show Trolls Often Sadists
Well, that's hardly surprising, is it?
What surprised me is that that any psychological research had been done on internet trolls. Here's a link to a Mother Jones report published a few weeks ago.
UPDATE: And in related news, This Ruthless World explains why some people who make "stupid jokes" anonymously need to be identified and sharply brought to heel.
What surprised me is that that any psychological research had been done on internet trolls. Here's a link to a Mother Jones report published a few weeks ago.
UPDATE: And in related news, This Ruthless World explains why some people who make "stupid jokes" anonymously need to be identified and sharply brought to heel.
Sunday, April 13, 2014
Sunshine Mary and I Have Something In Common
It's not simply that we're both emotionally labile middle aged bottle blondes who look at least ten years younger than our chronological ages.
No, what Sunshine Mary and I have in common is that we're both absolutely flummoxed by the new technology.
Really, old bags like Sunshine Mary and me have no business on the Internet because we can't for the life of us figure out how the darned thing works. It's clearly all too much for our age-addled hamster brains to absorb.
When I read that the author of SunshineGary -- that arrogant sprout! -- had ridiculed SSM for having the internet skills of her 91 year old great-grandmother, I felt a certain pang of empathy for Mary. After all, if I had known anything, I wouldn't have gotten doxxed, would I? Some people are so mean, aren't they? Probably because they're jealous of our accumulated womanly wisdom. That's why I am going to take a leaf from Sunshine Mary's good book and start praying for them.
I didn't know Mary was renouncing her bloggingaddiction vocation until this morning, when I checked my oh-so-modest stats to discover a dozen readers popping in from a link on Sunshine Mary's blog. Since I've only mentioned Miss Mary a couple of times*, I was puzzled. Imagine my surprise when the link took me directly to her more "exclusive" Word Press blog in which she had posted an extremely lengthy and incoherent "farewell" to her most special fans. Embedded in this byzantine (and to an "outsider," incomprehensible) post was a link to a comment an anonymous reader, a former acquaintance of Mary's, had posted here on my (her words) "batshit blog" many moons ago.
It seems to have taken Mary a full day to figure out what she had done ("Oops!"), at which point she set her blog to "private," but the readers keep trickling in, now from a site called Get Off My Internets.
If I'd known most of my traffic would come from people so hungry to read about Sunshine Mary (and JudgyBitch), I'd have blogged more about them.
Lordy, lordy, the manosphere IS all about the red pill women, isn't it?
________________________________________________________________________
* I just can't get into that Christian submissive red pill wife melodrama! It's too kinky for a vanilla "hetero-flexible" feminist like me!
No, what Sunshine Mary and I have in common is that we're both absolutely flummoxed by the new technology.
Really, old bags like Sunshine Mary and me have no business on the Internet because we can't for the life of us figure out how the darned thing works. It's clearly all too much for our age-addled hamster brains to absorb.
When I read that the author of SunshineGary -- that arrogant sprout! -- had ridiculed SSM for having the internet skills of her 91 year old great-grandmother, I felt a certain pang of empathy for Mary. After all, if I had known anything, I wouldn't have gotten doxxed, would I? Some people are so mean, aren't they? Probably because they're jealous of our accumulated womanly wisdom. That's why I am going to take a leaf from Sunshine Mary's good book and start praying for them.
I didn't know Mary was renouncing her blogging
It seems to have taken Mary a full day to figure out what she had done ("Oops!"), at which point she set her blog to "private," but the readers keep trickling in, now from a site called Get Off My Internets.
If I'd known most of my traffic would come from people so hungry to read about Sunshine Mary (and JudgyBitch), I'd have blogged more about them.
Lordy, lordy, the manosphere IS all about the red pill women, isn't it?
________________________________________________________________________
* I just can't get into that Christian submissive red pill wife melodrama! It's too kinky for a vanilla "hetero-flexible" feminist like me!
Friday, March 28, 2014
Step Away From the Keyboard
A few days ago, Roosh V wrote an ostensibly serious piece, "The Internet Is Doing You More Harm Than Good" in which he points out that "The internet has solved the cost barrier to idea distribution... [but]... This
ability, upon closer inspection, is actually causing us harm. We would
all better off limiting our internet usage than expanding it further."
He goes on to say, "There used to be a dearth of reading material for humans but now there is too much, and we are wasting time on content that we shouldn’t just to be entertained, just to feel a little emotional rush that we may not be getting through our normal lives. Consider that people now purposefully read content they hate just to stir their emotions. They do this as part of their daily routine."
This is an excellent point, one which even I have addressed. We won't point out the irony that Roosh has made his living by publishing provocative material on his blogs, has crowed with delight when a particularly vile post goes "viral", and retweets every tweet that references himself (positively or negatively). Let's not look at the way his example has inspired hundreds of men to beg for donations on their own little blogs. Perhaps what he is really saying is "Quit talking and listen to me."
I will also refrain from pointing out that long before the days of "yellow journalism," much less the internet, the public managed to waste a lot of time on idle entertainments that included dog fighting, gambling, public executions, and mystery plays.
A couple of days later, Matt Forney announced he was "unfollowing" people on Twitter in preparation for a social media blackout. The "addiction" was too much and was interfering with his "productivity." I think this is a good step for Forney. Like Roosh, he wants more than anything to be taken seriously as a writer and an intellectual, an aim that is incompatible with "click-baiting."
It occurs to me that, besides being hypocritical to the nth degree, Roosh misunderstands the nature of the manosphere. It is not a place to exchange ideas, obtain information, or engage in serious debate. It is a place where disaffected men go to experience a sense of community and belonging. The element they have in common is their hatred & desire for women; bashing "feminism" is just a pretext for bonding with one another.
And to be honest, the same could be said for the "anti-anti-feminist" bloggers like myself. It's a place where we go to be reassured that we are not alone; we have "friends" out there in cyberspace. Of course these are not "friends" in a conventional sense. We might find, as Eseld Bosustow has mused, that we actually have little in common besides a shared disdain for misogyny, bigotry, and ignorance. And yet that is not an insignificant basis for friendship either, as it suggests a number of shared core values, a certain sympathy of perspective.
I have experienced and observed real acts of support -- the sort of reaching out I associate with friendship -- amongst complete strangers on the internet. The fact that, as of today, Karen Stollznow's legal fund has surpassed its goal by over $10,000 is an example. (I'll bet she's feeling the love right now!) The fact that a very busy man like P.Z. Myers agreed to help "rescue" my name is another example: I can never not consider him a good friend although we will always remain "strangers." And because he inspired others to champion me, I now feel much less alone. There are a handful of readers here that, should the opportunity ever present itself, I would be delighted to meet in "real life." Maybe we would find out we didn't really care for one another -- but somehow I doubt that.
Meanwhile, there is no question that when the internet starts interfering with the opportunity to mix and mingle with flesh-and-blood people, it's high time to step away from the keyboard and (in my case) toddle down to the Eagles for a round of bingo.
He goes on to say, "There used to be a dearth of reading material for humans but now there is too much, and we are wasting time on content that we shouldn’t just to be entertained, just to feel a little emotional rush that we may not be getting through our normal lives. Consider that people now purposefully read content they hate just to stir their emotions. They do this as part of their daily routine."
This is an excellent point, one which even I have addressed. We won't point out the irony that Roosh has made his living by publishing provocative material on his blogs, has crowed with delight when a particularly vile post goes "viral", and retweets every tweet that references himself (positively or negatively). Let's not look at the way his example has inspired hundreds of men to beg for donations on their own little blogs. Perhaps what he is really saying is "Quit talking and listen to me."
I will also refrain from pointing out that long before the days of "yellow journalism," much less the internet, the public managed to waste a lot of time on idle entertainments that included dog fighting, gambling, public executions, and mystery plays.
A couple of days later, Matt Forney announced he was "unfollowing" people on Twitter in preparation for a social media blackout. The "addiction" was too much and was interfering with his "productivity." I think this is a good step for Forney. Like Roosh, he wants more than anything to be taken seriously as a writer and an intellectual, an aim that is incompatible with "click-baiting."
It occurs to me that, besides being hypocritical to the nth degree, Roosh misunderstands the nature of the manosphere. It is not a place to exchange ideas, obtain information, or engage in serious debate. It is a place where disaffected men go to experience a sense of community and belonging. The element they have in common is their hatred & desire for women; bashing "feminism" is just a pretext for bonding with one another.
And to be honest, the same could be said for the "anti-anti-feminist" bloggers like myself. It's a place where we go to be reassured that we are not alone; we have "friends" out there in cyberspace. Of course these are not "friends" in a conventional sense. We might find, as Eseld Bosustow has mused, that we actually have little in common besides a shared disdain for misogyny, bigotry, and ignorance. And yet that is not an insignificant basis for friendship either, as it suggests a number of shared core values, a certain sympathy of perspective.
I have experienced and observed real acts of support -- the sort of reaching out I associate with friendship -- amongst complete strangers on the internet. The fact that, as of today, Karen Stollznow's legal fund has surpassed its goal by over $10,000 is an example. (I'll bet she's feeling the love right now!) The fact that a very busy man like P.Z. Myers agreed to help "rescue" my name is another example: I can never not consider him a good friend although we will always remain "strangers." And because he inspired others to champion me, I now feel much less alone. There are a handful of readers here that, should the opportunity ever present itself, I would be delighted to meet in "real life." Maybe we would find out we didn't really care for one another -- but somehow I doubt that.
Meanwhile, there is no question that when the internet starts interfering with the opportunity to mix and mingle with flesh-and-blood people, it's high time to step away from the keyboard and (in my case) toddle down to the Eagles for a round of bingo.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
I Love Cleavage (Who Cares)
A couple of days ago, I saw this story about a "creepy subreddit" that encourages members to upload pictures of women showing cleavage (in fact, any "sexy" photo will do) onto a special Facebook page designed for the viewing pleasure of... well, I guess anyone on Facebook who loves to see a suggestion of breasts. (I assume this isn't an "I Love Toe Cleavage" page, although God knows that would draw its own audience.)
There are ground rules: The pictures must already have been posted by the subject (a Facebook user herself), the woman must be over eighteen, and the woman must not be named (as though that will somehow protect her identity these days).
The pages (there are actually more than one) have met with an overwhelmingly enthusiastic response.
Disgusting, isn't it? My first response was: One more way to punish women for being on the internet.
But what if the tables were turned? What if some intrepid person (woman or man) was inspired to obtain pictures of attractive male Facebook users for the same purpose? Hell, for all I know, someone already has (but I'm not willing to waste an hour looking for them).
I had to admit that didn't bother me nearly so much, and I had to ask myself, Why not?
There is plenty of evidence that American women have taken to "objectifying" men in record numbers. Just read Jezebel or any number of popular women's magazines. Recall the kerfuffle over Jon Hamm's candid "crotch shots" last year? I have every reason to believe he found that experience just as humiliating and invasive as some Jane Doe who has already posed for and posted the pictures herself.
I'm not saying that "objectifying" people of any gender is behavior to be proud of. But we have to acknowledge it seems hard-wired in the human brain to do so. Obviously, both men and women enjoy looking at pictures of good-looking men and women in various states of deshabille. (And kittens. And babies. And food.) And we especially savor images we're not "supposed to" see.
The underlying "revenge" element in "I Love Cleavage" or similar Facebook pages is quite unpleasant, like watered-down versions of Hunter Moore's Is Anyone Up. There is an unescapable sense that these young women are being "shamed" for their sexuality. Again, I ask, Why? I assume the young women posted their own "sexy" images as a celebration of their beauty, or out of vanity, or a desire to be desired -- all, BTW, perfectly valid, healthy, and natural reasons in my opinion. So the idea that these pictures have "shaming potential" is merely a demonstration of howfucked up puritanical Americans are (even / especially American "feminists").
I'm not saying that Facebook shouldn't address this issue with a change of policy. If enough fuss is raised, it probably will. After all, Facebook is the domain of adolescents (of all ages), whom we hypocritically claim to "protect."
If there is one thing I've learned in the last few months, it's that none of us have completely comprehended the power of social media to showcase the most base of human behavior.
Although I'm not ever going to find my mug (orboobs decollatage) on an "I Love Cleavage" Facebook page, I will just add that I'm sorry I ever joined Facebook. Of course, now that I'm on, I can't get off. And I'll bet a lot of my friends feel the same way.
There are ground rules: The pictures must already have been posted by the subject (a Facebook user herself), the woman must be over eighteen, and the woman must not be named (as though that will somehow protect her identity these days).
The pages (there are actually more than one) have met with an overwhelmingly enthusiastic response.
Disgusting, isn't it? My first response was: One more way to punish women for being on the internet.
But what if the tables were turned? What if some intrepid person (woman or man) was inspired to obtain pictures of attractive male Facebook users for the same purpose? Hell, for all I know, someone already has (but I'm not willing to waste an hour looking for them).
I had to admit that didn't bother me nearly so much, and I had to ask myself, Why not?
There is plenty of evidence that American women have taken to "objectifying" men in record numbers. Just read Jezebel or any number of popular women's magazines. Recall the kerfuffle over Jon Hamm's candid "crotch shots" last year? I have every reason to believe he found that experience just as humiliating and invasive as some Jane Doe who has already posed for and posted the pictures herself.
I'm not saying that "objectifying" people of any gender is behavior to be proud of. But we have to acknowledge it seems hard-wired in the human brain to do so. Obviously, both men and women enjoy looking at pictures of good-looking men and women in various states of deshabille. (And kittens. And babies. And food.) And we especially savor images we're not "supposed to" see.
The underlying "revenge" element in "I Love Cleavage" or similar Facebook pages is quite unpleasant, like watered-down versions of Hunter Moore's Is Anyone Up. There is an unescapable sense that these young women are being "shamed" for their sexuality. Again, I ask, Why? I assume the young women posted their own "sexy" images as a celebration of their beauty, or out of vanity, or a desire to be desired -- all, BTW, perfectly valid, healthy, and natural reasons in my opinion. So the idea that these pictures have "shaming potential" is merely a demonstration of how
I'm not saying that Facebook shouldn't address this issue with a change of policy. If enough fuss is raised, it probably will. After all, Facebook is the domain of adolescents (of all ages), whom we hypocritically claim to "protect."
If there is one thing I've learned in the last few months, it's that none of us have completely comprehended the power of social media to showcase the most base of human behavior.
Although I'm not ever going to find my mug (or
Friday, March 14, 2014
Dragnet Nation
If you missed Bill Moyers' interview with Julia Angwin, the author of Dragnet Nation, it's well worth watching. The worst news? It's pretty much impossible to "opt out."
Thursday, December 5, 2013
Feeding the Beast
A Facebook friend posted today a link to some new Fox-promoted lie about Obamacare with the comment, "I'm always surprised people continue to believe this stuff." I was surprised that she was surprised. After all, she is a successful psychologist who specializes in treating addiction. More than most, she should understand that "believing" is not what drives the audiences of Fox and other media outlets that rely on people's insatiable appetites for outrage. The fact is, most of us enjoy being outraged. It's fun to get mad. Anger makes us feel strong. It motivates us. That's because anger releases a cascade of stimulating hormones that make us feel more alert ("alive") and energetic. No wonder many of us get addicted to these powerful mind-altering chemicals that we can manufacture ourselves, right in our own heads, in the privacy and convenience of our own homes. (And by "us," I mean "me" because, being of the XX persuasion, I am hopelessly solipsistic.)
There have been a number of articles about "feeding the beast" of public outrage, and I expect to see more about this as people start to feel trapped in cycles of frustration and helplessness that are relieved temporarily by experiencing a dose of righteous anger, only to result in a "crash" -- that is, until the next scandal engages our attention and pumps us full of adrenaline once more. It's exhausting, though, isn't it?
There is a lot of anger addiction in my family, and I am an anger addict myself. I was taught to fuel myself with my own anger the way other people are taught to use coffee, as a routine stimulant in response to fatigue, fear, stress or any event that I find excessively taxing. That doesn't mean I walk around in a state of simmering rage or am prone to public melt-downs. But it does mean I can be rather unpleasant to be around when I am girding my loins for battle with some unpleasant or tiresome task such as cleaning the house or tackling a mountain of paperwork. I have long been conscious of how I manipulate my own brain chemistry in order to energize myself with a goodly dose of anger.
Ironically, by feeding the anger beast I often wind up depleting my reserves. Instead of actually harnessing that anger to effect real change (such as actually re-grouting the tub), I pursue the "high" like the junkie I am, seeking more "hits" of outrage. For better or worse, like everyone else I live in a media-rich environment where there are endless opportunities to divert myself, and endless opportunities to be outraged.
I suppose this came to mind today when I found myself idly peeking at Matt Forney's twitter feed instead of cleaning the bird's cage. Yesterday, he had tweeted something about me, to the effect that reading my blog was "like watching a nervous breakdown in slo-mo" and that I should really be put on "suicide watch." Both comments made me laugh, and I wasn't offended by either. To be honest, I wanted to see if he had tweeted anything more about me! ("Vanity, thy name is woman!") Instead, he was on an entirely different toot, courting new sources of outrage by virtually dancing on the grave of Nelson Mandela.
Forney's post about why girls need less (or was it more?) self-esteem has already faded from collective memory. These things seem to have a half-life of about two weeks. Now he is left with the unenviable task of keeping attention on himself with nothing but his internet connection, smartphone, and nastiest impulses to help him.
Not for the first time I am thinking that in terms of grinding, mind-numbing, thankless vocations, the endless pursuit of internet notoriety must be the worst. And it isn't even like "trolling for a living" fetches up much of a "living." One of my mild but persistent obsessions is trying to figure out how a guy like Forney manages to stay asporky well-fed as he does. I can only speculate that even though he's long since dropped out of college, his mom is still sending him "care packages." (Or is it that, in the words of Shakespeare, anger is his meat and he sups upon himself?)
When I first stumbled into the "manosphere" I couldn't believe my eyes. I would never have guessed how many Angry White Men were out there. I felt compelled to read boatloads of these blogs in an effort to grasp the depth and breadth of it, to accept that the resurgence of a "new" misogyny was real. I started with Roosh (hence the name of the blog), but soon discovered he was only one of many men who really, really hate women and don't hesitate to express that fear & loathing with shockingly contemptuous and even violent imagery (from safely behind their keyboards of course). And they had fans too, and many of those readers had their own tiny terrible blogs and tiny furious twitter feeds.
I'll admit that these guys (and a few of these gals) scared me. I hate to admit that because that's exactly what they want to do: to control women by playing on their fears. And then I got very angry, which is a natural coping mechanism, because anger makes the fear manageable.
OK, I now see this New Misogyny really is a thing in our world (not in my own small "real" world, mind you, where I have never met -- or at least never had reason to recognize -- any guys like this). I've entertained my worst fears about what it represents, and have come to the conclusion that it does not represent a serious social threat, at least in its current incarnation.
So what's my excuse for continuing to immerse myself in the toxic morass that constitutes the "manosphere"? Is there a 12 Step program for people like me, who are addicted to feeding their own internet-fueled anger? And what are the salient differences between "people like me" and "people like them" anyway? In terms of our respective anger addictions, it seems very few.
It strikes me that on some small level I have been engaging in a symbiotic relationship with the manosphere bloggers, a sort of "dance of anger" in which we take turns outraging each other. Maybe there is more in common between, say, Matt Forney and me than meets the eye. Like many dysfunctional relationships, we are each getting some pay-off, feeding some addictive and self-destructive need.
Anyway, enough about Rush Limbaugh-wannabe Matt Forney for now (and in a reasonable universe, enough about Rush Limbaugh and Matt Forney forever.) Time to watch once more "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (yes, I'm still on my WWII Germany kick) and pull my Christmas lights out of the attic because God forbid I be the only house on my cul-de-sac without lights on it.
There have been a number of articles about "feeding the beast" of public outrage, and I expect to see more about this as people start to feel trapped in cycles of frustration and helplessness that are relieved temporarily by experiencing a dose of righteous anger, only to result in a "crash" -- that is, until the next scandal engages our attention and pumps us full of adrenaline once more. It's exhausting, though, isn't it?
There is a lot of anger addiction in my family, and I am an anger addict myself. I was taught to fuel myself with my own anger the way other people are taught to use coffee, as a routine stimulant in response to fatigue, fear, stress or any event that I find excessively taxing. That doesn't mean I walk around in a state of simmering rage or am prone to public melt-downs. But it does mean I can be rather unpleasant to be around when I am girding my loins for battle with some unpleasant or tiresome task such as cleaning the house or tackling a mountain of paperwork. I have long been conscious of how I manipulate my own brain chemistry in order to energize myself with a goodly dose of anger.
Ironically, by feeding the anger beast I often wind up depleting my reserves. Instead of actually harnessing that anger to effect real change (such as actually re-grouting the tub), I pursue the "high" like the junkie I am, seeking more "hits" of outrage. For better or worse, like everyone else I live in a media-rich environment where there are endless opportunities to divert myself, and endless opportunities to be outraged.
I suppose this came to mind today when I found myself idly peeking at Matt Forney's twitter feed instead of cleaning the bird's cage. Yesterday, he had tweeted something about me, to the effect that reading my blog was "like watching a nervous breakdown in slo-mo" and that I should really be put on "suicide watch." Both comments made me laugh, and I wasn't offended by either. To be honest, I wanted to see if he had tweeted anything more about me! ("Vanity, thy name is woman!") Instead, he was on an entirely different toot, courting new sources of outrage by virtually dancing on the grave of Nelson Mandela.
Forney's post about why girls need less (or was it more?) self-esteem has already faded from collective memory. These things seem to have a half-life of about two weeks. Now he is left with the unenviable task of keeping attention on himself with nothing but his internet connection, smartphone, and nastiest impulses to help him.
Not for the first time I am thinking that in terms of grinding, mind-numbing, thankless vocations, the endless pursuit of internet notoriety must be the worst. And it isn't even like "trolling for a living" fetches up much of a "living." One of my mild but persistent obsessions is trying to figure out how a guy like Forney manages to stay as
When I first stumbled into the "manosphere" I couldn't believe my eyes. I would never have guessed how many Angry White Men were out there. I felt compelled to read boatloads of these blogs in an effort to grasp the depth and breadth of it, to accept that the resurgence of a "new" misogyny was real. I started with Roosh (hence the name of the blog), but soon discovered he was only one of many men who really, really hate women and don't hesitate to express that fear & loathing with shockingly contemptuous and even violent imagery (from safely behind their keyboards of course). And they had fans too, and many of those readers had their own tiny terrible blogs and tiny furious twitter feeds.
I'll admit that these guys (and a few of these gals) scared me. I hate to admit that because that's exactly what they want to do: to control women by playing on their fears. And then I got very angry, which is a natural coping mechanism, because anger makes the fear manageable.
OK, I now see this New Misogyny really is a thing in our world (not in my own small "real" world, mind you, where I have never met -- or at least never had reason to recognize -- any guys like this). I've entertained my worst fears about what it represents, and have come to the conclusion that it does not represent a serious social threat, at least in its current incarnation.
So what's my excuse for continuing to immerse myself in the toxic morass that constitutes the "manosphere"? Is there a 12 Step program for people like me, who are addicted to feeding their own internet-fueled anger? And what are the salient differences between "people like me" and "people like them" anyway? In terms of our respective anger addictions, it seems very few.
It strikes me that on some small level I have been engaging in a symbiotic relationship with the manosphere bloggers, a sort of "dance of anger" in which we take turns outraging each other. Maybe there is more in common between, say, Matt Forney and me than meets the eye. Like many dysfunctional relationships, we are each getting some pay-off, feeding some addictive and self-destructive need.
Anyway, enough about Rush Limbaugh-wannabe Matt Forney for now (and in a reasonable universe, enough about Rush Limbaugh and Matt Forney forever.) Time to watch once more "The Marriage of Maria Braun" (yes, I'm still on my WWII Germany kick) and pull my Christmas lights out of the attic because God forbid I be the only house on my cul-de-sac without lights on it.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Roosh Rallies the Troops! (And Bans Me Again)
Today, Roosh trumpets into the void: "It's time to start delivering death blows to feminists!"
Ladies who tweet, beware: Roosh and his most fervent disciple Matt Forney are already all over you like flies on shit. They post the most inflammatory crap they can summon in their overheated imaginations. (The topic du jour was why girls with eating disorders make the best victims of "game"). Then they sit back and trawl Twitter to harvest the oh-so-predictable outrage. Anyone who links to a Roosh's (or Matt Forney's) name or their sites gets immediately "retweeted" and perhaps even treated to a special in-person "appearance" from Roosh (or Forney) himself. In Roosh's case, he will poke around in the girl's twitter account, blog, or whatever else he can find, post a picture of the girl if one is available, and then invite his readers to wank off to her image ("Would you fornicate?"). Classy, huh? Of course, most of the victims could not care less and quickly disengage from (or block) their would-be tormenter. I mean, being targeted by Roosh is kinda gross, kinda like stepping in dog feces, but a typical girl wipes her feet and soldiers on... It's not like most women are unfamiliar with this sort of uninvited attention / abuse.
But Roosh, at least, has wearied of this particular game. After one female student in the UK blew him off on twitter last night, he spent several hours composing a new screed, this time upping the stakes in the Battle of the Sexes that he and his flying monkeys are fighting (entirely in their own minds).
"We have reached a level of influence that ignoring us is no longer an effective means of attack. By leaving us alone for so long, they gave us the needed time to carefully optimize our belief system and recruit committed soldiers to the cause."
Well, uhm, actually, I think the problem may be that people have not yet figured out that the "manosphere" is one big trolling operation, and that leaving these trolls alone is probably the only way to shut them up. Most people are more bemused than alarmed when Roosh pops out of their twitter woodwork. Once they've figured out who he is, he is summarily blocked: Ah! a person of no importance at all to anyone.
I have no idea what it means "to carefully optimize our belief system." And frankly, after a day of marking student essays, my brain is too fried to even try to decipher this.
"An attack last year from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a formidable adversary with millions of dollars in resources, strengthened us more than hurt. We overcame them like a dog scratching away a flea."
Well, it's true the SPLC took some heat for its creation of a list of "misogynists" to keep an eye on; some folks thought they were trivializing their mission by bothering to include rape-apologists like Roosh and Paul Elam. Personally, I am reassured that at least one social justice group (mostly thanks to the unflagging efforts of David Futrelle) are monitoring these guys. Personally, I consider these guys and their followers to be hate groups, pure 'n' simple, straight up. And it's no coincidence that manosphere blogs tend to be fertile ground for racists, homophobes, and conspiracy nuts of all stripes.
(Also, forgive me, but Roosh is seriously underestimating the power of fleas. As the owner of four dogs, I can attest that none of them has been able to "scratch away" the problem, and at this point I should seriously consider investing in Frontline or Advantage stocks.)
"Even when they cherry pick quotes of [sic] context, the intelligent man (who I cater to) can easily see through the distortions by doing his own research. He's just a couple of clicks away from learning that media portrayals are dishonest and one-sided."
Cherry pick what quotes? Distortions of what? Media portrayals of what? And if idle googling is your idea of "research".... Well, suffice to say there is a reason we uptight academics don't allow students to use wikipedia as a legitimate source for academic papers.
Actually, the saddest bit of the passage above is Roosh's cynical claim that he "caters to the intelligent man." Even Roosh knows, on some level, that his followers are a horde of sub-literates whom he manipulates and exploits in an attempt to maintain his own pathetic "lifestyle" -- a lifestyle that consists primarily of living in cheap sublets, hanging out in internet coffee bars, and preying on Ukrainian teenagers.
"We won't change the minds of most women, and we won't convert the most die-hard of white knights, but the most powerful of their upcoming attacks will have the main result of converting more men over to our side."
OK, women are, what -- like, 52% of the U.S. population? Now add in the "die hard white knights" (I assume this will include most of the husbands, fathers, brothers, lovers, sons, friends, allies, and colleagues of said women?) What are you left with now? A veritable handful of pathetic sods and wankers who can't get girlfriends because they are socially inept? Wow, I'm quaking in my boots, man!
"They're damned if they come after us and damned if they don't, due to the antifragile construction of our network. This suggests that a tipping point has been reached and it no longer matters what they do, because our ideas have already pollinated mainstream society."
Oh, dear. When Nessim Talib recently complimented Roosh's summary of his book (via Twitter), I knew it was gonna go to poor Roosh's head. (And the fact that Talib was roundly laughed at by his Twitter cronies as a result seems to have escaped Roosh entirely).
And as for the word "pollinated"... yuck, can this idiot produce one single post that doesn't reference his own spooge?
"We're at the point where we have enough musculature that we can pick up the big stone off the ground... through one simple action: holding our enemies responsible for their words."
As evidence, Roosh points to the fact that many "mainstream outlets" have chosen to kill comments sections entirely rather than host streams of feminist outrage vs. anti-feminist rhetoric. And yeah, I'm impressed with your new "musculature." Now, instead of looking like "a noodle-armed terrorist," you look like "a defined biceps-armed terrorist."
"Seeing these comments is a good sign, but it doesn't go far enough. The next step is to hold them responsible for the rest of their lives."
Roosh proceeds to hatch his diabolic, moustache-twirling scheme of world domination by explaining how the "manospherians" can ruin (ruin, I tell you!) the lives of "feminists" by tweaking Google searches. In other words, make sure any search for a "man-hating" blogger or journalist results in a link to some manosphere blogger's evisceration of her "reputation." There, that will teach 'em a lesson!
"The views of every female hatemonger must be preserved in Google" so that "future employers... know of her belief system."
Projection, much? I mean, here is a guy who has admitted that, if he were to do it all over again, would NOT have revealed his true identity online. I am sure James C. Weidmann (aka "Roissy") who was unwillingly outed (and subsequently terminated from his job) would concur. Old farts Paul Elam, a former "addictions counselor" and Bill Price (whom who I understand is a former car salesman) had little in the way of "careers" to lose to start out with.
"It's fun to lash out at them on Twitter, [but] we must also choose a more permanent and Google-able medium to create a historical record of their behavior."
Well, I'm not sure what is more pathetic here: Roosh's idea that "Google" will some day stand as the "historical record," or that any person who stands up against hate groups has anything to fear from either future employers or history itself.
Seriously. I use a pseudonym for my blogging and online activity, not because I fear being outed to my employer (whom I am fairly certain could not care less about anything I have ever posted), but because I am just a teensy bit paranoid of nut jobs (like the partially hinged, moronic commentators of Roosh's blogs) showing up at my doorstep or workplace unannounced, AK-7s in hand.
If the sort of "activism" that Roosh is promoting ( = inflammatory posts followed by online harassment) succeeds at anything, it is convincing many people that there continues to be a need for "feminism" at all...
Because here is the thing: Until recently, I would not have identified myself first and foremost as a "feminist." That is to say, until the past couple of years, I took feminism for granted. Of course, I supported the principles of feminism: equal opportunity, equal responsibility, regardless of gender. I just figured that those principles had become so deeply embedded and interwoven into the fabric of western culture that I no longer had to pay attention. The battles had been fought and won by the generation who came of age a decade before me, and my "job" was to just carry these on.
Frankly, the emergence of the New Misogynists changed all that. I am no longer complacent, and suddenly the historical struggles of feminism -- all the way back to Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin -- have become fresh, compelling, and relevant to me. And for that, I suppose, I can thank the gentlemen of the "manosphere."
Ladies who tweet, beware: Roosh and his most fervent disciple Matt Forney are already all over you like flies on shit. They post the most inflammatory crap they can summon in their overheated imaginations. (The topic du jour was why girls with eating disorders make the best victims of "game"). Then they sit back and trawl Twitter to harvest the oh-so-predictable outrage. Anyone who links to a Roosh's (or Matt Forney's) name or their sites gets immediately "retweeted" and perhaps even treated to a special in-person "appearance" from Roosh (or Forney) himself. In Roosh's case, he will poke around in the girl's twitter account, blog, or whatever else he can find, post a picture of the girl if one is available, and then invite his readers to wank off to her image ("Would you fornicate?"). Classy, huh? Of course, most of the victims could not care less and quickly disengage from (or block) their would-be tormenter. I mean, being targeted by Roosh is kinda gross, kinda like stepping in dog feces, but a typical girl wipes her feet and soldiers on... It's not like most women are unfamiliar with this sort of uninvited attention / abuse.
But Roosh, at least, has wearied of this particular game. After one female student in the UK blew him off on twitter last night, he spent several hours composing a new screed, this time upping the stakes in the Battle of the Sexes that he and his flying monkeys are fighting (entirely in their own minds).
"We have reached a level of influence that ignoring us is no longer an effective means of attack. By leaving us alone for so long, they gave us the needed time to carefully optimize our belief system and recruit committed soldiers to the cause."
Well, uhm, actually, I think the problem may be that people have not yet figured out that the "manosphere" is one big trolling operation, and that leaving these trolls alone is probably the only way to shut them up. Most people are more bemused than alarmed when Roosh pops out of their twitter woodwork. Once they've figured out who he is, he is summarily blocked: Ah! a person of no importance at all to anyone.
I have no idea what it means "to carefully optimize our belief system." And frankly, after a day of marking student essays, my brain is too fried to even try to decipher this.
"An attack last year from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a formidable adversary with millions of dollars in resources, strengthened us more than hurt. We overcame them like a dog scratching away a flea."
Well, it's true the SPLC took some heat for its creation of a list of "misogynists" to keep an eye on; some folks thought they were trivializing their mission by bothering to include rape-apologists like Roosh and Paul Elam. Personally, I am reassured that at least one social justice group (mostly thanks to the unflagging efforts of David Futrelle) are monitoring these guys. Personally, I consider these guys and their followers to be hate groups, pure 'n' simple, straight up. And it's no coincidence that manosphere blogs tend to be fertile ground for racists, homophobes, and conspiracy nuts of all stripes.
(Also, forgive me, but Roosh is seriously underestimating the power of fleas. As the owner of four dogs, I can attest that none of them has been able to "scratch away" the problem, and at this point I should seriously consider investing in Frontline or Advantage stocks.)
"Even when they cherry pick quotes of [sic] context, the intelligent man (who I cater to) can easily see through the distortions by doing his own research. He's just a couple of clicks away from learning that media portrayals are dishonest and one-sided."
Cherry pick what quotes? Distortions of what? Media portrayals of what? And if idle googling is your idea of "research".... Well, suffice to say there is a reason we uptight academics don't allow students to use wikipedia as a legitimate source for academic papers.
Actually, the saddest bit of the passage above is Roosh's cynical claim that he "caters to the intelligent man." Even Roosh knows, on some level, that his followers are a horde of sub-literates whom he manipulates and exploits in an attempt to maintain his own pathetic "lifestyle" -- a lifestyle that consists primarily of living in cheap sublets, hanging out in internet coffee bars, and preying on Ukrainian teenagers.
"We won't change the minds of most women, and we won't convert the most die-hard of white knights, but the most powerful of their upcoming attacks will have the main result of converting more men over to our side."
OK, women are, what -- like, 52% of the U.S. population? Now add in the "die hard white knights" (I assume this will include most of the husbands, fathers, brothers, lovers, sons, friends, allies, and colleagues of said women?) What are you left with now? A veritable handful of pathetic sods and wankers who can't get girlfriends because they are socially inept? Wow, I'm quaking in my boots, man!
"They're damned if they come after us and damned if they don't, due to the antifragile construction of our network. This suggests that a tipping point has been reached and it no longer matters what they do, because our ideas have already pollinated mainstream society."
Oh, dear. When Nessim Talib recently complimented Roosh's summary of his book (via Twitter), I knew it was gonna go to poor Roosh's head. (And the fact that Talib was roundly laughed at by his Twitter cronies as a result seems to have escaped Roosh entirely).
And as for the word "pollinated"... yuck, can this idiot produce one single post that doesn't reference his own spooge?
"We're at the point where we have enough musculature that we can pick up the big stone off the ground... through one simple action: holding our enemies responsible for their words."
As evidence, Roosh points to the fact that many "mainstream outlets" have chosen to kill comments sections entirely rather than host streams of feminist outrage vs. anti-feminist rhetoric. And yeah, I'm impressed with your new "musculature." Now, instead of looking like "a noodle-armed terrorist," you look like "a defined biceps-armed terrorist."
"Seeing these comments is a good sign, but it doesn't go far enough. The next step is to hold them responsible for the rest of their lives."
Roosh proceeds to hatch his diabolic, moustache-twirling scheme of world domination by explaining how the "manospherians" can ruin (ruin, I tell you!) the lives of "feminists" by tweaking Google searches. In other words, make sure any search for a "man-hating" blogger or journalist results in a link to some manosphere blogger's evisceration of her "reputation." There, that will teach 'em a lesson!
"The views of every female hatemonger must be preserved in Google" so that "future employers... know of her belief system."
Projection, much? I mean, here is a guy who has admitted that, if he were to do it all over again, would NOT have revealed his true identity online. I am sure James C. Weidmann (aka "Roissy") who was unwillingly outed (and subsequently terminated from his job) would concur. Old farts Paul Elam, a former "addictions counselor" and Bill Price (
"It's fun to lash out at them on Twitter, [but] we must also choose a more permanent and Google-able medium to create a historical record of their behavior."
Well, I'm not sure what is more pathetic here: Roosh's idea that "Google" will some day stand as the "historical record," or that any person who stands up against hate groups has anything to fear from either future employers or history itself.
Seriously. I use a pseudonym for my blogging and online activity, not because I fear being outed to my employer (whom I am fairly certain could not care less about anything I have ever posted), but because I am just a teensy bit paranoid of nut jobs (like the partially hinged, moronic commentators of Roosh's blogs) showing up at my doorstep or workplace unannounced, AK-7s in hand.
If the sort of "activism" that Roosh is promoting ( = inflammatory posts followed by online harassment) succeeds at anything, it is convincing many people that there continues to be a need for "feminism" at all...
Because here is the thing: Until recently, I would not have identified myself first and foremost as a "feminist." That is to say, until the past couple of years, I took feminism for granted. Of course, I supported the principles of feminism: equal opportunity, equal responsibility, regardless of gender. I just figured that those principles had become so deeply embedded and interwoven into the fabric of western culture that I no longer had to pay attention. The battles had been fought and won by the generation who came of age a decade before me, and my "job" was to just carry these on.
Frankly, the emergence of the New Misogynists changed all that. I am no longer complacent, and suddenly the historical struggles of feminism -- all the way back to Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin -- have become fresh, compelling, and relevant to me. And for that, I suppose, I can thank the gentlemen of the "manosphere."
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
Being Outrageous
If anything characterizes The Way We Live Now, it is the cult of celebrity. It seems like almost everyone wants to be famous. We crave recognition so badly that many of us don't care what it takes: better notoriety than anonymity. And because we live in a day of unparallelled opportunities to self-publish and self-promote, people often have to scream to be heard above the din of competing sources of input. One way to stand out above the fray is to be Outrageous.
One recent commenter on Manboobz alluded to this as a way of explaining the "manosphere." For the most part, it's an internet phenomenon, which has linked various and numerous unhappy and disenfranchised white men. Unable to form a coherent platform, they have united behind a common enemy, which they call "feminism" but which really is femininity in general (including, as we have recently seen, female children and transsexual women). Much has already been written about this elsewhere, and much more eloquently than I could.
Members of the manosphere post, for the most part, anonymously. They have to, because to openly espouse the views they claim to hold would be to commit social and professional suicide.
A handful of leaders do identify themselves (Roosh V aka Daryush Valizadeh, Paul Elam, Matt Forney aka Ferdinand Bardemu), and a few have had their true identities made known against their will (Roissy "Heartiste" and the guy who went by "violentacrez"). Of course, any semblance of a "normal" life is over for them: they are now officially and irrevocably married to their online personae. In some ways, they have paid the ultimate price for their narcissism (or "martyrdom" as their acolytes might frame it).
Yet in order to maintain readership, they must keep producing more of what their readers want, which is ever more outrageous material. The "outrage" comes from the overtly hateful nature of their ideas, the hateful expression of these ideas, and sometimes from a potent and disturbing stew of fantasy, entitlement, resentment, and violent retribution. In other words: hate porn.
Then there are people like JudgyBitch, who is torn between the demands of her compulsive exhibitionism and the need to protect her personal life. From what I have seen, exhibitionism usually trumps prudence in these cases. Hence, she uses pseudonyms, but "vlogs" on YouTube; being recognized and outed is but a matter of months. And that is not a threat, since I have neither the means nor the interest in doxing her. It is simply a prediction and perhaps a warning. We may enjoy the anonymity of the internet, but we are foolish indeed if we think that it is guaranteed.
Personally, I'm not sure the threat of exposure is an entirely bad thing. Perhaps it's a reflection of my age, but I don't hold anonymity to be sacrosanct. The internet is not the confessional. A blog is is not your analyst's couch. Writing about, or for, other people affects them. Words can be as influential and powerful as actions, and they should be treated as such. People should be held accountable for what they say. Free speech is not free of consequences.
Right now the Internet is The Wild West and anything goes, so naturally it is a fertile ground for the worst of people and the worst kinds of people, but in time I am confident we will develop some respect for its power; we will demand and adopt standards of behavior and responsibility. Meanwhile, we are left with vigilante groups like Anonymous, which is perhaps better -- or perhaps worse -- than no moral order whatsoever.
At the same time -- and getting back to the title of this post -- I do understand the merciless thirst for recognition, and how blogging plays to that. That's because I understand The Quest for Immortality and The Denial of Death. What's more human and existentially poignant than to counter the inevitability of death by howling in protest? Of course, ranting and raging avails us little -- often makes everything worse in fact -- but it makes us feel powerful, and distracts us from the unbearable knowledge that all of this -- and all of us -- will be dust in a hundred years.
As one hostile commenter unkindly and needlessly pointed out, I have a very "obscure" blog. Indeed, I'm thrilled if five people look at it a day. I'm pleasantly puzzled by the number of visitors I do get. I'm not trying to make a name for myself here, much less a profit. I'm just practicing my writing skills, and I find it more motivating to write for an audience (even if it's only an imaginary, potential audience).
Like Hansel and Gretl, I've littered my blog with so many crumbs that it would be fairly easy to figure out who I am, if anyone cared (and I am very, very sure that no one does). And not that it matters because it really, really doesn't, in part because I am not only old, but also (like my heroine Jane Eyre) plain and poor and obscure and have no family or reputation to protect. Also, when I write critically about the New Misogynists, I only write what I would say to their faces, given the opportunity. I would be happy to meet with Roosh V or Janet Bloomfield in person and tell them what I think. Hell, I'd buy the first round!
However, a few years ago, I had a very different blog. It was a kind of confessional, recounting with humor and some salacious detail a year spent pursuing casual encounters on craigslist. (Frankly, I was more than a little inspired by A Round Heeled Woman by Jane Juska.) Well, as you know, Sex Sells, even sexual escapades as weird and pathetic as I was often describing in my crazy little blog.
As my readership took off, I found that more and more I was living my life in service to my blog. Consequently, I was engaging in behaviors that were increasingly humiliating and risky (both to my physical and emotional well being) just to have something to regale "my readers" with over their morning coffee. It got a little out of hand. Sometimes I said and did things I didn't really believe in or feel good about, just for the "copy." Inevitably, I got more than a little burned out. And, as fun as it was to shock and delight a lot of random strangers in cyberspace, I had to let it go. (Also, I happened to meet someone I loved, thereby putting the final kabosh on pursuing or reporting what I might call "My Slutty, SluttyYear.")
This experience gives me a little personal insight into -- and real sympathy for -- why and how a phenomenon like JudgyBitch is born. I imagine she's been bored and flailing about for something beyond family responsibilities to give her life meaning and purpose. Maybe she's always been the kind of gal with plenty of outrageous opinions, the kinds of opinions that are offered more for shock value than real insight ("the life of the party" so to speak), and now she's found a way to get a lot more attention for them. The validation comes from making people gasp (Oh no she didn't!) rather than making them reflect or engage in honest debate. She's found a forum where she is made to feel exceptional ("A woman in a man's world") and is accorded special recognition and privilege as such. As she is egged on, she goes farther and farther out on the limb, she exposes more and more, her position becomes more and more tenuous, she seems more and more deluded... But that attention! That masculine attention! It is as addictive as crack, and she just can't stop.
One recent commenter on Manboobz alluded to this as a way of explaining the "manosphere." For the most part, it's an internet phenomenon, which has linked various and numerous unhappy and disenfranchised white men. Unable to form a coherent platform, they have united behind a common enemy, which they call "feminism" but which really is femininity in general (including, as we have recently seen, female children and transsexual women). Much has already been written about this elsewhere, and much more eloquently than I could.
Members of the manosphere post, for the most part, anonymously. They have to, because to openly espouse the views they claim to hold would be to commit social and professional suicide.
A handful of leaders do identify themselves (Roosh V aka Daryush Valizadeh, Paul Elam, Matt Forney aka Ferdinand Bardemu), and a few have had their true identities made known against their will (Roissy "Heartiste" and the guy who went by "violentacrez"). Of course, any semblance of a "normal" life is over for them: they are now officially and irrevocably married to their online personae. In some ways, they have paid the ultimate price for their narcissism (or "martyrdom" as their acolytes might frame it).
Yet in order to maintain readership, they must keep producing more of what their readers want, which is ever more outrageous material. The "outrage" comes from the overtly hateful nature of their ideas, the hateful expression of these ideas, and sometimes from a potent and disturbing stew of fantasy, entitlement, resentment, and violent retribution. In other words: hate porn.
Then there are people like JudgyBitch, who is torn between the demands of her compulsive exhibitionism and the need to protect her personal life. From what I have seen, exhibitionism usually trumps prudence in these cases. Hence, she uses pseudonyms, but "vlogs" on YouTube; being recognized and outed is but a matter of months. And that is not a threat, since I have neither the means nor the interest in doxing her. It is simply a prediction and perhaps a warning. We may enjoy the anonymity of the internet, but we are foolish indeed if we think that it is guaranteed.
Personally, I'm not sure the threat of exposure is an entirely bad thing. Perhaps it's a reflection of my age, but I don't hold anonymity to be sacrosanct. The internet is not the confessional. A blog is is not your analyst's couch. Writing about, or for, other people affects them. Words can be as influential and powerful as actions, and they should be treated as such. People should be held accountable for what they say. Free speech is not free of consequences.
Right now the Internet is The Wild West and anything goes, so naturally it is a fertile ground for the worst of people and the worst kinds of people, but in time I am confident we will develop some respect for its power; we will demand and adopt standards of behavior and responsibility. Meanwhile, we are left with vigilante groups like Anonymous, which is perhaps better -- or perhaps worse -- than no moral order whatsoever.
At the same time -- and getting back to the title of this post -- I do understand the merciless thirst for recognition, and how blogging plays to that. That's because I understand The Quest for Immortality and The Denial of Death. What's more human and existentially poignant than to counter the inevitability of death by howling in protest? Of course, ranting and raging avails us little -- often makes everything worse in fact -- but it makes us feel powerful, and distracts us from the unbearable knowledge that all of this -- and all of us -- will be dust in a hundred years.
As one hostile commenter unkindly and needlessly pointed out, I have a very "obscure" blog. Indeed, I'm thrilled if five people look at it a day. I'm pleasantly puzzled by the number of visitors I do get. I'm not trying to make a name for myself here, much less a profit. I'm just practicing my writing skills, and I find it more motivating to write for an audience (even if it's only an imaginary, potential audience).
Like Hansel and Gretl, I've littered my blog with so many crumbs that it would be fairly easy to figure out who I am, if anyone cared (and I am very, very sure that no one does). And not that it matters because it really, really doesn't, in part because I am not only old, but also (like my heroine Jane Eyre) plain and poor and obscure and have no family or reputation to protect. Also, when I write critically about the New Misogynists, I only write what I would say to their faces, given the opportunity. I would be happy to meet with Roosh V or Janet Bloomfield in person and tell them what I think. Hell, I'd buy the first round!
However, a few years ago, I had a very different blog. It was a kind of confessional, recounting with humor and some salacious detail a year spent pursuing casual encounters on craigslist. (Frankly, I was more than a little inspired by A Round Heeled Woman by Jane Juska.) Well, as you know, Sex Sells, even sexual escapades as weird and pathetic as I was often describing in my crazy little blog.
As my readership took off, I found that more and more I was living my life in service to my blog. Consequently, I was engaging in behaviors that were increasingly humiliating and risky (both to my physical and emotional well being) just to have something to regale "my readers" with over their morning coffee. It got a little out of hand. Sometimes I said and did things I didn't really believe in or feel good about, just for the "copy." Inevitably, I got more than a little burned out. And, as fun as it was to shock and delight a lot of random strangers in cyberspace, I had to let it go. (Also, I happened to meet someone I loved, thereby putting the final kabosh on pursuing or reporting what I might call "My Slutty, SluttyYear.")
This experience gives me a little personal insight into -- and real sympathy for -- why and how a phenomenon like JudgyBitch is born. I imagine she's been bored and flailing about for something beyond family responsibilities to give her life meaning and purpose. Maybe she's always been the kind of gal with plenty of outrageous opinions, the kinds of opinions that are offered more for shock value than real insight ("the life of the party" so to speak), and now she's found a way to get a lot more attention for them. The validation comes from making people gasp (Oh no she didn't!) rather than making them reflect or engage in honest debate. She's found a forum where she is made to feel exceptional ("A woman in a man's world") and is accorded special recognition and privilege as such. As she is egged on, she goes farther and farther out on the limb, she exposes more and more, her position becomes more and more tenuous, she seems more and more deluded... But that attention! That masculine attention! It is as addictive as crack, and she just can't stop.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Everybody's bloggin'
Everybody's bloggin'. Everybody in the manosphere, that is. There are hundreds of them. There are PUA blogs. There are anti-PUA blogs. There are MGTOW blogs. There are MRA blogs. There are female anti-feminist blogs. There are manosphere blogs about other manosphere blogs. And there are manosphere blogs devoted to giving other manosphere bloggers advice, like The Private Man.
What do they all have in common? Well, as Zosimus the Heathen pointed out in his last comment: everything. Remember the theme song of the old Patty Duke show? "They look alike, they talk alike, they even dress and walk alike." (Thanks a lot, Zosimus, now I'm going to be hearing that in my head all day!)
One of the memes of the manosphere is the "hive mind" of women, but Jezebel and Feministe ain't got nothing on these guys. They stay united by constantly commenting or repeating each other's comments. They band together at the virtual feet of their gurus, few of whom tolerate dissent within the ranks. Roosh is notorious for blocking the IPOs of commenters who fail to demonstrate the appropriate degree of fealty, while Paul Elam prefers to publicly eviscerate potential rivals to his throne. These tiny beleaguered sects cannot withstand much tension or challenge to authority before they splinter and fragment. And thus are born ever more blogs. Yet they're all pretty much singing the same tune, which goes something like this.
A preoccupation of many manosphere bloggers is figuring out how to spin straw into gold support their "masculine lifestyles" with blogging. (Cuz what's more manly than spending your days in your tighty-whities in front of a computer, kvetching endlessly about women?) In fact, Matt Forney is right now promoting on his blog his new self-published e-book about how to make money blogging and self-publishing e-books (even though he hasn't made any money yet and his stats aren't much higher than mine LOL).
Manosphere bloggers unite in their admiration of Roosh's ability to travel the world on the money he makes with his "Bang" guides. I'll admit I am myself rather curious how much income his blogging and self-publishing generate. Obviously, it's extremely variable. I've read blogs with high traffic can generate as much as $1000/month. Suffice to say he's no Stephen King, and, as his videos demonstrate, he lives frugally: in simple sublets overseas, in his father's basement stateside, schlepping his own panini-maker wherever he goes, and proudly refusing to buy drinks for the ladies (it's a matter of principle, doncha know).
Roosh
@rooshv
"And trust me it's not dope to be 25 and move back to your parents' basement" http://ow.ly/kuye4 Tell me about it
Manosphere blogging as a career choice is problematic on so many levels. One's potential readership is limited right out of the gate. (Of course, the manosphereans maintain this is just a matter of converting a critical mass of American youth.) As Delicious Tacos points out, he hasn't bothered to commercialize his blog because the potential profit doesn't justify the effort. And don't only manosphere readers buy manosphere e-books? And most of what is in their e-books is on their blogs anyway. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?
Which reminds me of my mom's comment many years ago, when the shale oil boom collapsed, that the entire economy of Grand Junction, Colorado was being kept afloat by neighbors buying each other's stuff at garage sales.
Manosphere Blogging 101 – 21 Pieces Of Advice
There are many new, self-identified Manosphere bloggers cropping up ( some links below). I’m enthused by this. For all the new guys, I have some advice. I never thought that I’d be in the position to offer Manosphere blogging advice but after being at this for almost two years and with almost a million page views, I’ve learned a thing or two:1. Blogging requires patience and perseverance. Blogging for a couple of months and being disappointed is normal. A few hundred (if you’re fortunate) page views a day is to be expected until readers realize the seriousness of the blog. There are few, if any, home runs with blogging. Writers should only expect singles and doubles as page view counts grow.
2. Writing is work. For those not accustomed to writing often, it’s a serious chore. Not only must a man live his life, he has to be introspective and be willing to write about it. It’s not easy. You have been warned. Writing is work.
3. Manosphere writers, for now, are but humble pamphleteers (link below) and not real movers and shakers when it comes to shifting public opinion. The good news is that pamphleteers have an historic precedent of shifting public opinion. It just takes time and a critical mass of readership.
4. Commenters are the life blood of good blogs. A good blogger acknowledges and supports good comments. It doesn’t have to be often but it’s important that it’s done.
5. Haters gonna hate. Got hate comments? Nuke ‘em and ban ‘em. It’s your blog. It’s your real estate. If haters want to shit on your blog, moderate heavily and use the banhammer relentlessly. Don’t engage trolls… ever.
6. Spammers gonna spam. It’s vital that you check your spam inbox for legitimate comments because sometimes good comments get spammed out. Don’t let the spam folder get too full.
7. In the beginning, post often. These means three posts a week, at a minimum. When your blog gets some traction, you can cut back a bit, but not too much.
8. Brevity is the soul of wit. Posts needn’t be long. Rollo and Ian (links below) are the huge exception as their posts are usually quite long. You can’t be the exception to the rule until you’re well established. Three hundred words or so (well-written and concise) will do.
9. Comment on other blogs with meaningful comments that add to the original point(s). Dropping a brief comment just to generate traffic to your blog won’t do you any favors in the long run. Read the post. If you don’t have anything to offer, don’t comment.
10. Link to other blogs via your blogroll or your comments on your post. The other Manosphere bloggers will appreciate the links and be more willing to the link back to you.
11. Try to meet Manosphere bloggers and readers in real life. The Internet is not real life. Shaking a fellow man’s hand is real life. For example, I’ve got a live event coming up in March, 2013 (link below).
12. Find your niche. This will take time and your commenters will steer you in the right (write?) direction. As the Manosphere stands now, there are almost too many young men writing. For you young guys, consider focusing on a geographical or lifestyle niche on which to focus your concentration. Or, go personal as Danny (link below) has done.
13. Don’t give up. Patience and perseverance, remember?
14. Be willing to be a contributing author to group Manosphere blogs (links below). This will build your credibility and drive traffic to your blog. If you find yourself only able to post irregularly on your own blog, be willing to give that up and only be a contributing author to group blogs.
15. Be patient. Keep at it.
16. Post on forums with a link to your blog in your signature. There are loads of male-oriented forums that are not relationship of socially-focused oriented. Find the “other” category in gun, motorsports, sports, and male-oriented forums where men often go. Build a reputation there. Be taken seriously… then send them to your blog or other Manosphere blogs.
17. You want to monetize your blog? That’s a whole new level requiring far more time and effort. Don’t be half-assed about it. Go big or go home.
18. Respect your blogging elders. Rollo, Roissy, and Roosh are the starting points (links below) but there are many other Manosphere bloggers worth your attention and input. Check out my blogroll for a starting point. I don’t have them all.
19. Read the Red Pill women’s blogs (some links below). These dames are smart and worthy of serious consideration. They are also signs that life isn’t too bleak for the Red Pill man.
20. Don’t post hateful comments on blue pill blogs and forums. Once branded a hater, you lose credibility and that helps to lose credibility for the general Manosphere.
21. Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs) are part of the Manosphere. So is the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) crowd. That statement will get me some hate and I say tough shit.
Good luck, gentlemen. We’re doing something big here. Spread this advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)