Posts by B Jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
That's the one I meant. 25 times, not 10 times. A quick google would have helped.
-
Yes, and treating the problem in purely people-vs-people terms misses the point that a lot of the threats take on a specifically gendered tone, when assholes go bad. If you're visibly female and on the internet, you're more likely to run into assholes. I can't remember the citation for it, but a study on AOL with a female, neutral and male-named created accounts on a chat board, found that female names attracted 10 times more nasty comments than male ones.
That being said, there's a lot of overlap in the solutions for both. I'd like it to get harder for people to make anonymous threats on the internet, and easier for people to track down and prosecute people making those threats. It's all very well to talk of code of conduct, but they don't prevent people determined to transgress them.
-
Dammit, now I have The Killers' Where the White Boys Dance stuck in my head.
-
unless you're saying that women's online voice is one of race and gender-baiting and nobody should be allowed to opine against that.
Actually, that is what you're saying.
No - Tze Ming made a bunch of important points about women's ability to participate online in the face of threats of violence, and one one flip comment about men (in particular white ones) making up the majority of blog commentators, which is kinda true and not particularly offensive, speaking as a member of one of the groups supposed denigrated.
Ignoring the important points about threats of violence and women's participation to focus on perceived mean comments about men's participation shows a real lack of perspective. In most contexts, it's not cool to make comments perceived as mean about any group. In the context of a discussion about how one group is systematically marginalised, threatened and discriminated against, it's not cool to go on about how something relatively trivial marginalises you.
-
Tze Ming:
... I knew, whatever the demographics of my own readership and private correspondence, a comments section is always a white boy's playground. But hey, white boys gotta play somewhere, and at least it's clean!
Flip way of saying it, sure, but isn't turning a discussion about women's exclusion from online discussion through threats of violence into an argument about how unfair it is to denigrate "white boys" exactly an illustration of what Tze Ming is saying?
Think about what that means. That we can't talk about how women can have an online voice, because the guys take over complaining about how they've expressed that voice?
-
Are you sure they wouldn't still just opine about why they think women do things a certain way, and point out how unjust it is that they're excluded? Because that's what I've seen happen in most conversations in a mixed audience about women's issues. Even here - it's just that the opining is more benign and the complaints of injustice nicely worded.
-
They could be used in theatres where the russian influence is best kept secret.
The ones that don't do Chekov plays?
-
Copywriting:
Real estate agents think "Towering Inferno" is a great tagline for a highrise apartment building - nothing like the prospect of being trapped and burned to death to move property I suppose, unless they're talking about house prices. In other crimes against the English language, I saw one once describe a property as having the "penultimate kitchen".And walking in front of the camera:
TV camera crews like to use moving images wherever they can, to fill in the visuals while reporters voiceover the actual words. A still image of the expert's place of employment provides context. Someone walking in the picture (apparently) makes it more visually interesting. The poor old expert they've just interviewed is usually the first muggins they can find to perform this task. Receptionists answering fake phonecalls are also frequent victims of this practice. -
even here there is (seemingly) no support for the idea that men as a group need to address this issue?
There's support alright. You don't tell pedestrians how not to get hit by drunk drivers, you tell people not to drive drunk or let their mates drive drunk. Yet just about every discussion about preventing rape ends up being about leading guys on, walking home alone at night, not watching what you're drinking, self-defence and so on. Not about turning your mate in if he drags a girl into a central city carpark while you're waiting for him, or making sure the hot girl at the party isn't comatose when you make a move, or checking for active consent if your partner seems nervous, or how backing off the minute she says no is the right thing to do.
-
Could be worse - I remember a teacher telling me the rib thing back in the 80s. And it wasn't in front of my parents so they couldn't quickly redeem the misinformation.