Not Sure if it's Obvious By Now...
But I am not a huge supporter of feminism. I loved what it stood for in the past, but third wave feminism has definitely changed that meaning and girls now, who are trying to look up to something, are getting a misconstrued version of feminism. Of course, I don't think all feminists are bad nor do I think women shouldn't be feminists, but I am just trying to share my own personal thoughts and feelings on the subject.
If you haven't heard about it yet, there is a feminist blogger named Clementine Ford. She was called a slut online by Michael Nolan and upon being called this, she contacted his workplace and got him fired. Now, I can see both sides of this situation, but personally I do not think this is something he deserved. Keep in mind, she has been called many things by many people, so why this person? Why did she choose him out of all the other horrible comment makers? That's not fair. We also have to keep in mind that people make stupid mistakes online. We are all different in real life vs. online vs. anywhere else.
For example, here's an imaginary scenario all too common to many of us. Let's say we're acquainted with someone we have to work around a lot whether it be school, the workplace, volunteering, etc. Social situations! Let's say that's the case. Well, what if one particular person is mean to you and they are nice to everyone else? There are lots of things you can do in this situation. You can obviously tell a person in charge what is going on and they will be able to work out the situation, but let's say in this particular scenario you have the power to get this person fired just by saying, "I don't like that they're mean to me." Would you do that knowing that the only person they have a problem with is you? Would you do that when they are nice to everyone else? I hope not. You should always try to resolve problems differently. Getting rid of something that you find to be a problem or fighting fire with fire is not always going to help the situation. In the case of Clementine Ford, I don't think she should have done this.
The week that this was going on (I know I'm a little late to jump this stupid bandwagon of what she's done and write about it) she had said so many things to others that were out of hand towards men. Now think about the definition of feminism very hard. Isn't it the equality of the sexes? How is this in any way equal towards men? How can she say hurtful things about men and expect that to be okay? "Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." It's funny how we want people to follow those rules, but we don't think hard about it. If you're criticizing men for criticizing women aren't you just doing what they were doing in the first place? How can you be fine with that? It's hypocritical, is it not?
Well, a member of an online website I go on sent me the link to an article regarding what has been going on with Clementine Ford and already right off the bat we see the article is so biased, "Why do trolls go after feminists?" Basically, if you do anything that's against a feminist or feminism you are a troll. I've been called a troll a few times by some twitter feminists and let me tell you, they think that by calling you a troll that everything you say is no longer credible matter how logical it may be. I don't think that's right. You should have the right to have your own opinions. Just because you are not a feminist does not mean your opinion doesn't matter and just because you reply to feminist theories with you're own rebuttal, doesn't make you a troll. Everything is so misconstrued nowadays. I thought a troll was someone who just fucked with people online. Apparently, if you fuck with people's logic and make them question themselves, it's also called being a troll and you will immediately be blocked to create a safe space for whoever it is you are "trolling." That's not to say that there aren't trolls who do go after feminists, but there's always some reason for it. They probably find them easy targets to mess around with. Feminist logic has failed us so many times, so trolls feed off of that failure. They see it as something to easily make fun of and rightfully so. This is partly the feminists fault, too, for letting things get so bad. They should really try to set a clear path for what they are doing at the moment to make things easier. I feel bad for those who are actually trying to make a change, but can't because of the feminists who have messed up what the movement is really about. Of course, though, when you're movement as a whole is somewhat faulty and a majority of the people in your movement believe it, then people are going to criticize you. At some point you have to realize that trolls are just fucking around with you, but that doesn't mean that they're opinions don't hold true and can also be significant.
"So why do many hard core internet trolls target women, and feminists in particular?" I don't even think there are any troll demogra--oh, wait there are. The article also explains more in-depth what trolls are all about. I could probably write a response to that article, too, just because the demographics of them pretty much being "privileged white males" irks me. Again, if the group trolls are targeting can easily get made fun of, of course they're going to do it. Maybe I'm too much of a troll, but yeah, I think they do it mostly for laughs. I don't understand how when someone considered a troll does it, it's bad, but if someone we all love online does it, it suddenly becomes "smooth" (or it becomes extremely controversial. Maybe they can even become the most hated human being. Who knows? There's a world of possibilities out there). Anyways, I don't think trolls target women, and feminists. I feel it's more about targeting stupidity or obviously trying to find something that you can make a controversial/mean/whatever you want to call it comment, too. So if feminists were constituted of a bunch of dudes, trolls would still target them. If you just so happen to be a woman who said something they want to disagree with that's what happened. If you happen to be a feminist, perhaps they are targeting feminists, but perhaps not. Perhaps they just didn't like your comment, so they replied to it horribly. Let's talk about Clementine Ford now. How in any way was Michael Nolan a troll? In fact, by him calling her a slut, wouldn't we want to label him a "cyberbully" instead? I think that would fit better in this situation just because he said one word. How do we know he wanted to spark controversy or get some laughs or just be plain mean just for fun? How do we know he didn't really mean it. I think with trolls, they do mean what they say, but the difference is they think it's fun/funny or they want to instigate. What if he was being serious? Would we not call him a cyberbully instead?
Here's where my problem with Ford contacting Nolan's employers and firing him starts: "It wasn't the first time Clementine Ford had been targeted on Facebook, nor was it the worst insult she had ever received." Already here it makes me wonder what it was about Nolan that just made her want to fire him? Was it the accessibility of contact that did it? She decided that the first person who had their information online would be the first person she would fire? Nolan could have as easily made another account with a fake name and fake information and never get in trouble, because whoever it was he created would not even exist. What if that had been the case? Would she have gone out of her way to fire a fake person? I highly doubt it. So if Nolan wasn't the first to do such a thing to her, why did she do it? Was she in a bad mood? Did she have nothing better to do? Did she get motivated and want to make some type of statement? What caused her to do it? That's the main question I have for her. If this wasn't the worst insult she received, why did it affect her so much? What was it about that word? Had he said another word, would she not have done anything? Surely, if he had commented, "I loathe you. You are a wanton woman," this situation would have been different (How can you not admire the use of the word wanton?). Anyhow, if she'd been called worse, why didn't she get those people fired? Did the simplicity of staring at one single word on the screen send ripples through her body that just told her she had to fire this guy. Why?
"A Sydney man named Michael Nolan called the feminist columnist and blogger a "slut" after she drew attention to threatening abuse she had been receiving elsewhere online." I think a lot of people take these kinds of posts as "cries for attention." Perhaps, she was just advocating the fact that we shouldn't be abusing others online (which is true, we shouldn't be doing such things. That's uncalled for. As I said in the beginning, "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself." If you're going to abuse someone else, think about how you would like it if you were abused online. Also, remember, there's a difference between abuse, trolling, and this so-called trolling even if you're not trolling. There's so many differences, but we can't seem to distinguish them anymore. Just remember, constant harassment after someone has made it clear to you that they do not enjoy what you are saying is abuse. Constantly, fucking with people because you think it's funny is a troll. Constantly, making your ideas clear in a way that is contradictory towards a particular group is this new so-called trolling. As I started off the paragraph, I mentioned "cries for attention." Why do you think that matters? We should be listening to people's cries for attention, right? Well, maybe because not everyone wants to see/hear these cries for attention. Maybe some people find it extremely annoying. It's not wrong to think so. Maybe Nolan was sick of it and he posted his comment irritated with reading things that he found annoying about her article. Wow, way to look at that on the flip side, am I right? We never look at the person who is getting blamed for what they're doing. We complain about victim-blaming, but we never complain about perpetrator-blaming? I'm not saying, "Side with the person who is wrong," but sometimes the person who is perceived to be wrong is not always the one who is wrong. There are many people who are falsely accused of doing things. How can we not say there isn't such a thing as perpetrator-blaming? Taking it back, let's look at Nolan a little deeper. At the start I was asking Ford, why would she do such a thing and I'm sure many people would think, "She had the right to do it and no one should be complaining about what she's done." Shouldn't the same apply to Nolan. Why would he do such a thing? "He had the right to do it and no one should be complaining about what he's done." It goes both ways...doesn't it? If it doesn't, re-evaluate what you think feminism means. This will make things a lot clearer and make it more apparent what kind of feminist you are. What if Nolan was having a bad day? Oh, but if he's having a bad day, no one would care, because he's the person who did the wrong thing. Ford is not the person in the wrong even though she got someone fired without knowing whether they needed that job. She could have literally ruined his life, but no, she's not the person who did the wrong thing in this situation. Can we all just agree that from both sides, both people in this situation did the wrong thing. Ford for getting someone fired and Nolan for being mean to someone online. Both did something they maybe shouldn't have, but it happened, and it doesn't seem like things are going to change anytime soon, so life will be life.
"Sometimes, Ford said, she blocks people who send her such messages and sometimes she shouts back at the trolls." Why does she block some people, but some people no? (She blocked me and I never made one comment to her. I just made a tweet about her, nothing horrible, but apparently I'm not who she wants to deal with.) I think she blocks the people she knows she can't win in an argument with and the people she doesn't are people she thinks she can win in an argument with. There's no reason for her to pick and choose. "Hmm, I think this abuse looks nice. Maybe I should try replying to that one and see how the conversation goes." It's pretty much as if she were trying on clothing. "I think I'll take this one and remove this one from my purchase."
"I think his choice to write that particular word - a word that is used to degrade and dehumanise women - on a post where I was sharing an example about sexualised violence and abuse was a pretty key indicator of the attitudes he took towards women." I would first like to start off with commenting on the word. I think people forget that words apply to both sexes. You can just as easily call a guy a slut as you would a girl. Since the definition of slut varies between people, you can't easily get offended. For example, my definition of a slut would be someone who sleeps with tons of people on the daily, doesn't care for commitment, and has no respect towards their body. Does that mean your definition of slut will be the same? Maybe your definition of slut is someone who allows others to use their body however they want. Maybe you think having over 10 sexual partners in your life makes you a slut. Etc. There are so many different perspectives as to what a word is. I don't think he should have used that word considering the context of the article, but again we don't really know his motive. What if he was the one trying to make a statement? Use a powerful word on a powerful article. As if he were finding the perfect moment to use the word in one of her articles. It's not sensitive, but I don't think people should be so highly affected by things like this when they're dealing with online situations. Rather than fight back by firing someone who you don't even know in real life, try to use what they said and advocate why hurting someone online is bad. So many better things could have been done and maybe then she wouldn't be getting so much shit thrown in her direction. People will see what she did and shake their heads. I definitely did. I don't think anyone should be fired over something so petty. Wouldn't it be funny if she got fired for saying something to a male? Oh, how the tables have turned! People (feminists/SJWS in particular) would be outraged. It would reach the masses, make the news, take the world by storm. How could a woman get fired over something so petty?! Oh, the oppression! Is that what it would be like? It's funny how they try to create equality, but in doing so gender distinctions have become so much more noticeable.
"Ford...noticed that Nolan's employer was mentioned on his Facebook profile." If that hadn't been in there what would she have done? Just kicked the situation to the side. Well, guys, this is exactly why you do not put information like that on your profile page. Let this be a lesson to everyone. Either don't say anything that could be mean (but these days everything is mean) or try to remain as anonymous as possible online.
"Since the sacking, Ford said she has been subjected to hundreds of abusive messages on Facebook, Twitter and on email. She has taken screen shots of some of the messages and posted them on her blog. They include obscene sexual slurs, and death and rape threats." I'll start with the first sentence. As I mentioned at the beginning of this post towards how trolls are targeting feminists. The same thing applies to Ford's situation. She did something that can easily be made fun of or criticized, so people are definitely going to tell her something and when she's so readily available through social media, they'll leave a post for her. Is it abuse? Yes. Is it all abuse? No. She may be receiving abuse such as the sexual slurs and threats, but does that mean the stuff she isn't screen shotting is bad? No. Chances are, it's probably people pointing out what she did was wrong and trying to make her see why it was faulty. She's using what stupid people say to make her case look better. A great use of pulling at our emotions, but if some of us look deeper, we can obviously see she is also not giving us what normal, civilized people with opposite opinions are saying. Everyone in this world can't possibly be that hurtful, right? Then again, would she ever share something like this on her blog? Probably not. It doesn't support her, so she won't use it. Sure, I don't think she should be getting the abuse she is receiving, but think about it. She wanted Nolan to face the consequences of using a word she didn't like by firing him, and now she's receiving the consequences of possibly ruining someone's life. Hers is much easier to deal with. As she said, she can block them. =) For Nolan, a simple block can't do anything to help him out now.
"Ford herself has at times cursed at people online, telling them to shut up or worse. She admitted that she loses her temper but draws a distinction between uncivil language deployed in an running online argument, and threats of violence that come out of the blue." Why is she being a hypocrite then and getting mad at others for saying mean things to people online? That doesn't even make sense. That's like saying people shouldn't kill animals, but eating meat occasionally or like telling others they should love everyone for who they are, but occasionally judging the few people you're not fond of. She says that she can run a distinction. I'm sure a lot of us can so there's nothing special with that. Some people like to post past the acceptable boundaries. That's fine, too. It's just everyone's sensitivity levels are so high, it makes everything seem like a bad thing. You can't say this or that or else everyone will hate you. Sure, people can recognize and distinguish the difference between something they should and should not say online, but that doesn't mean they'll stop saying horrible things. Then she justifies herself in the paragraph after this one and I don't see why. There is no justification for this kind of stuff. She was being a hypocrite and she knew it. I don't like it when others try to justify their actions. "You shouldn't do this, and I may do it, but see this is why it's okay for me to do it." It's as if they think that everyone else is at fault except them and that shouldn't be the attitude of someone who is a "feminist." Someone who wants "equality."
The article then moves on from the topic of Clementine Ford's abuse to other abusive situations from an expert named Emmett Rensin. "Today he's a self-described "lefty feminist." Well, I don't think anything good can come after that lol. "He's also a former teenage troll who says that those hurling abuse online are 'pretending that life online is an alternative reality.'" I guess I was right. Nothing good could come after that. In regards to his definition of trolling. That actually points out something really major. Plenty of people online probably act like the other person on the other side of the screen isn't real. I'm sure that's the main appeal of online interaction, the lack of interaction that it provides with anyone really being there. You don't have to take into regard what your words may inflict onto others/how it may affect them/what they could do after seeing what you've sent to them. People don't think about that. Is trolling always that? After a while, you do become aware you are talking to someone real. So what happens when that realization is made? Do we continue to be mean, because we live in an alternative reality. Maybe. I'm sure there's more to it. I'm sure you can find people who truly support what they're saying or people who do it for other reasons. There's a wide variety of people out there. We'll never really know.
"They think they're a nice enough person in ordinary life, maybe with frustration or anger that they think the internet is a safe outlet for." That's plausible. Does it mean that they should reevaluate their attitude online? What if they're just a mean person? I think depending on your environment you will always act different. The internet is a different environment for many people. Some may see it no different than real life. Let's take me for example. I would say online I can range between many personalities. I can be nice, mean, funny, a mix of all that, or something else. I don't know. I'm aware of what I may imply with whatever it is I'm posting, but that doesn't mean anything to most people. They just take it as they want to take it. So even if I was saying the most sarcastic thing, I could be taken seriously and someone could get really offended. At home, I am generally a shut-in who does homework most of the time. I am quiet and shy and like to be left alone. That is my home life. At school, I am mostly shy, but I am quite social during lunch. So that shows even more of a distinction in environment. Depending on the situation you are put in, there can be an even bigger differentiation within the same place. To put it simply, we don't act constantly the same. We may have continuous traits in a specific environment, but that does not mean those traits will stay true to us in different situations. I think the internet is a safe outlet for releasing your frustration or anger. You can type up a storm and post it on a blog like me or you can send yourself an e-mail containing all the feelings you have or you can post a video on YouTube. The options are endless. It becomes a problem when you choose a specific person and decide to harass and harass them time after time. There's no reason for them to receive your abuse just because you feel bad about yourself. If you're having a conversation with back-and-forths that's fine, but when it becomes a thing where you pick at everything this person does obsessively, I think you should know that it's a problem. Try to use common knowledge when doing it. People might say that you should ask yourself if your comment will hurt the other person. Don't do that. It might and it might not. Are you going to keep every comment to yourself just because you want them to feel better? That's not how real life works, so why should the internet work like that.
"They think the internet is somewhere they can go and vent, and there's no real victim, the people aren't real, it doesn't really matter." Except it does and again people may not be aware of that at first, but gradually over time you would think that they do. Even so, there's a lot of people out here who don't really care. I wouldn't say it's venting, but I am looking at venting in the context of giving out your personal opinion with passion. Vent is a strong way of expressing your emotions is it not? Does that mean every time I reply to a feminist online I am being a troll, because I am venting about how I feel feminism isn't the answer to all problems? Apparently I am. If someone wants to vent, let them, because at times the other person and the person venting can learn a lot from these conversations. It's a problem when it gets to the level of abuse and harassment or when it just becomes plain petty. Both parties should know that when it just becomes petty there is no reason to reply anymore. If you have nothing more to say, then you should stop to. Make your points, finish, and be done with it. When you can't seem to do that, that's bad. That's when it's a problem.
"It's not as if in the last 150 years of feminist political action there haven't been men and women screaming at them to shut up or threatening them." That's wrong, but your movement is about equality, right? Don't they have the right to do those things. Technically, yes, because you want equality. Technically, no, because they're taking away your equality. It's a paradox. I think people should just be able to voice their opinions. Always question your beliefs, always listen to what the other party has to offer, and always listen to yourself. Do all of this without bias. Doing all three of these will give you a lot of insight and help you evolve. Feminists truly are doing a good thing, it's just gotten worse now with the third-wave. It might not get better either until they do something that significantly changes things for humanity as a whole.
"He suggests that individuals stick to the old internet adage 'don't feed the trolls' - in other words, ignore and block them - but acknowledges that it's difficult, and ignoring them won't quiet them, and won't always make them go away." You can do whatever you want. Whether you want to retaliate against the trolls or block them, do whatever you please. Always remember that your movement is about equality and if you think shutting them up is the answer than good luck with promoting equality. Is it "equality for all except people who are mean online?" No. Absolutely not. Everyone should consider what people are saying. Don't block unless you are truly affected by what these people are saying to you. If it doesn't bother you, then don't bother to block. It definitely won't quiet them and it won't make them go away. There will either be more coming or they will post their beliefs online like me or you will still somehow see what people are saying about you that you don't like. What can you do, but take it as it comes! Feminism is about being strong, isn't it? I have to admit right now. I used to lean towards feminism when I was in middle school. As I grew older, I gradually saw many flaws in it (most of all, the double standards), so I ended that phase in my life. The iconic picture of Rosie the Riveter is such a great example of how feminism has taught women to be strong. I'm not trying to twist things, but as strong women, we should be able to take the things thrown at us. Now, not everyone may have the same mental capacity for these things and that is when I would advise you to block these people, but for any feminists reading this, please try to keep that strong image in your mind. It's good to be strong. Show them your views, but as I said before, remember to evaluate their views as well. It keeps the relationship between feminists and anti-feminists (and this is a horrible word to use for people who are against feminism, b/c that definition has been misconstrued as well) healthy.
The article continues bringing it back to what Ford has told them. "You hear on the one hand 'Why don't you just block and delete?', or 'Why don't you just ignore them?' she says. 'So you block them then you are told you don't like debate or criticism and it's censorship.' It's true. Doing either is sort of iffy, but it's worse when you're a feminist. You're movement calls for equality, so you do have the right to block these people, but the fact that you're taking away their right to give you their opinion is why you're probably being criticized. Not because you don't like debate or criticism, but because your movement specifically says you fight for equality and that's not equal. Do what feels right, in the end you're the one who needs to be happy/feel engaged in whatever it is you're doing.
To everyone who has read this lengthy article, thank you very much. Overall, I hope you've learned that what I believe should be the answer to online "trolling" is a nice evaluation of everyone's opinions. I hope you've gained something from this and if you have any comments for me, post below!
