Kevin's Watch

After the saga of Elevatorgate*, the girls over on SkepChick have been writing about the hate mail and death threats they've received lately.

Today they talked about other women getting similar hate mail and threats.

ittybiz.com/death-threats-online/

What drives people to such hatred? Are we really still so primitive that this is considered fun or sport? Gene Roddenberry maintained such strict control over the writing of Star Trek episodes because he genuinely believed that scientific advancement would improve human nature (you can google some of the horror stories of trying to write for him). Can we really reach such a state, or are we always going have this element present?

On a side note (and possibly more appropriate for the Tank), how and when should law enforcement get involved in cases of online threats?


*"Elevatorgate": Girl gets propositioned at 4am while on an elevator. On her blog she says, "That's not the right way to pick up girls." Internet explodes. Men say she hates men. Women say they like getting hit on. Abuse victims say they would be terrified to be in an elevator with a man. OP says there's a time and a place, and 4am alone on an elevator isn't it.

Well that was quick:
Scientists receive hate mail... for trying to cure an ailment. So it's not just women... it seems the Internet breeds hate mail.

What makes people think that violent threats are a good idea?

Well if our civilisation survives it's current stage then I would guess we'll take control of our genetics... being human will not be so clear cut and aspects of our nature that we currently consider part of being human will be alterable. That said, we will do what we do in the future because of who/what we are... so I guess you could say that whatever happens the butterfly was in the caterpillar the whole time.

This comes up all the time, really. John Scalzi blogged about it just the other day. There's definately a trend in anonymous online communication toward this kind of treatment, and there are obvious trends in where it is targetted: People who discuss science, religion, and politics receive more than those in other subjects, and women receive much, much more than men.

For some reason there seem to be a lot of people out there who feel that women are acceptable targets for all kinds of vitriol, and being on the internet and mostly anonymous makes them all come out into the open.

I suspect it's the same, or a similar, phenomenon as the one that makes some drivers think it's okay to flip other drivers the bird. I remember reading an article once that claimed that drivers who get personalized license plates are more likely to drive aggressively. Supposedly doing things like picking your own tag designation and otherwise personalizing your car makes it feel like it's an extension of you -- and so anybody who, say, cuts you off in traffic is then perceived as invading your personal space. That, coupled with the relative anonymity we have in our own little rolling cocoons, makes people more likely to act out against other drivers.

Or maybe that's just in DC.

Anyway, on teh intarwebz we all kind of stake our own personal spot, right? And sometimes people come into our own personal web space and spout crap we don't like, right? Well, we've got that same kind of anonymity online as we do in our cars. So hey, if you can spew vitriol at some pixels on a screen who you perceive as spouting nonsense, what's to stop you?

Rigel wrote:Are we really still so primitive ...?

This is a fascinating topic and it is relevant to all men not just the loons who post threats on the Internet.

The answer to the question above is 'Yes' and until it is recognised and accepted by ALL men it will not change in any significant way.

It has to do with male identity. Male identity, IMO, is founded in the female. This is a consequence of birth and the womb. The female power of fertility means that everybody's first connection with the world is through their mother. For a woman this is simply an introduction to her own power and nature that she will, hopefully, grow into and experience as she gets older.

For a man, however, it is something altogether different. For the male, the experience is that the world can only be fully engaged with through the connection with the female, something he (erroneously, as it turns out) feels he doesn't possess.

Now it gets complicated, because even though the world we live in is male controlled and dominated it is quite possible for a man to feel that he is powerless and has nothing. This will intuitively (and correctly) be felt to be related to the female. The man will (wrongly) believe that he is nothing because of women (his lack of success will be due to a lack of connection to the real world, a connection that requires a female element). For those who are frustrated by this, women will start to become a focus for their anger.

The post-modern world allows women to be successful in ways that were not possible before, for example, through the Internet. A successful woman is a double threat to the powerless, frustrated male. She not only possesses what he needs, she is also seen as colonising a previously male dominated area (e.g. the intellectual, business, science etc.).

Anger towards women is socially frowned upon but the Internet has no such social constraints and so the true state of things comes out. People who deal with the consequences of male physical and sexual violence towards women will testify that it is much more widespread than is usually thought and that it can occur anywhere.

The reason for this is that it is primal and it cannot fully addressed through education and language. It must be addressed at the level of the body and the pre-linguistic and it must be addressed by each individual male in each generation.

The idea that this type of violence is rooted in maleness rather than in the individual is a deeply uncomfortable thought for any man, including me.

u.

ussusimiel wrote:The idea that this type of violence is rooted in maleness rather than in the individual is a deeply uncomfortable thought for any man, including me.

Not sure I agree with your assertion that it's based on maleness... but the idea that individuals are capable of such violence is troubling, and worries me about myself. I'm not a violent person; I'm not hateful, vitriolic, spiteful, manipulative or abusive. Yet I'm afraid of my capacity to be all those things.

Rigel wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:The idea that this type of violence is rooted in maleness rather than in the individual is a deeply uncomfortable thought for any man, including me.

Not sure I agree with your assertion that it's based on maleness... but the idea that individuals are capable of such violence is troubling, and worries me about myself. I'm not a violent person; I'm not hateful, vitriolic, spiteful, manipulative or abusive. Yet I'm afraid of my capacity to be all those things.

Yes, two uncomfortable ideas. The capacity for violence is obviously present in everyone. I'm taking it a step further in relation to violence and hatred aimed specifically at women.

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Rigel wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:The idea that this type of violence is rooted in maleness rather than in the individual is a deeply uncomfortable thought for any man, including me.

Not sure I agree with your assertion that it's based on maleness... but the idea that individuals are capable of such violence is troubling, and worries me about myself. I'm not a violent person; I'm not hateful, vitriolic, spiteful, manipulative or abusive. Yet I'm afraid of my capacity to be all those things.

Yes, two uncomfortable ideas. The capacity for violence is obviously present in everyone. I'm taking it a step further in relation to violence and hatred aimed specifically at women.

u.

Maleness could be a variable, but not in of it self. I believe it has to be coupled with something else, in this case culture. There's a culture where the man ought to be self-sufficient, bread winner, awesome, etc. To not be is a slight emasculation... to see a female that traditionally isn't any of these things and excel at them even more so. It isn't maleness itself, it's the perceived threat that one's maleness is somehow being lessened.

ussusimiel wrote:

Rigel wrote:

ussusimiel wrote:The idea that this type of violence is rooted in maleness rather than in the individual is a deeply uncomfortable thought for any man, including me.

Not sure I agree with your assertion that it's based on maleness... but the idea that individuals are capable of such violence is troubling, and worries me about myself. I'm not a violent person; I'm not hateful, vitriolic, spiteful, manipulative or abusive. Yet I'm afraid of my capacity to be all those things.

Yes, two uncomfortable ideas. The capacity for violence is obviously present in everyone. I'm taking it a step further in relation to violence and hatred aimed specifically at women.

u.

There's something about maleness in it, though. Not all males are violent as a matter or course [Stop at Starbucks for coffee, get to work, check my email, go to staff meeting, submit progress report, punch someone in the face, lunch with a client...] yet they commit something like something like 8x's the violent crimes as women...and most of the relatively small amount of violence that IS committed by women is against other women. [that's U.S....I suspect many places it's even worse ratio, a few better]
There is something...I'm tempted to say unstable, but will instead say volatile...inherent in being male. And not just in violence. Something like 3x as many men as women in the top 1% of intelligence...but also something like 7x as many in the bottom 1%, and women win the average.
Women are supposedly more emotional...and yet irrational "I just lost control" behavior in men far exceeds that of women.
Mental illness is roughly the same for men and women, though WHICH mental illnesses they suffer is statistically different and the ones that women are most prone to are connected with being the victim of violence/abuse...which is overwhelmingly caused by men.

BTW, it's interesting that most "tough guy's" are actually cowards. They generally don't fight for supremacy with other Alpha's. They tyrannize the weak, and bully when they have back-up/anonymity.

Rigel wrote:the idea that individuals are capable of such violence is troubling, and worries me about myself.

I am pretty sure that the Darwin-award candidates who send emails such as have been described here would swear under oath that sending an email can't be violent. At best, they would admit it is possibly offensive, but gosh golly they were mad, and not to mention so-and-so deserved it anyway, so that makes it forgiveable and it's all just political correctness anyway.

Orlion wrote:Maleness could be a variable, but not in of it self. I believe it has to be coupled with something else, in this case culture. There's a culture where the man ought to be self-sufficient, bread winner, awesome, etc. To not be is a slight emasculation... to see a female that traditionally isn't any of these things and excel at them even more so. It isn't maleness itself, it's the perceived threat that one's maleness is somehow being lessened.

I agree with this. It is a position taken from a gender identity perspective. However, my contention comes from an approach based on bodywork, rebirthing and wombwork. This takes cultural factors into account and attempts to look at the implications of earlier psychological structures in our development.

Vraith wrote:There is something...I'm tempted to say unstable, but will instead say volatile...inherent in being male. And not just in violence. Something like 3x as many men as women in the top 1% of intelligence...but also something like 7x as many in the bottom 1%, and women win the average.

There is something in both 'unstable' and 'volatile' and I would add the word 'fragile' as well. (The structure of the male brain may also be an extra element in the mix.)

u.

ussusimiel wrote:

Orlion wrote:Maleness could be a variable, but not in of it self. I believe it has to be coupled with something else, in this case culture. There's a culture where the man ought to be self-sufficient, bread winner, awesome, etc. To not be is a slight emasculation... to see a female that traditionally isn't any of these things and excel at them even more so. It isn't maleness itself, it's the perceived threat that one's maleness is somehow being lessened.

I agree with this. It is a position taken from a gender identity perspective. However, my contention comes from an approach based on bodywork, rebirthing and wombwork. This takes cultural factors into account and attempts to look at the implications of earlier psychological structures in our development.

Vraith wrote:There is something...I'm tempted to say unstable, but will instead say volatile...inherent in being male. And not just in violence. Something like 3x as many men as women in the top 1% of intelligence...but also something like 7x as many in the bottom 1%, and women win the average.

There is something in both 'unstable' and 'volatile' and I would add the word 'fragile' as well. (The structure of the male brain may also be an extra element in the mix.)

u.

It's extraordinarily difficult to separate the biological attributes of maleness from the gender constructs of manliness. From the moment of birth we have gender constructs attached to our sex, meaning there is not a moment in life where we can access it without using those constructs. Things like the intelligence statistics Vraith quotes would seem to be inherent, but it's a hard call to make.

I agree, though, that however the qualities of maleness come about, there is something volatile about us. Women are more likely to have suicidal thoughts than men, but once men have them, we are much more likely to actually carry out the deed.

Cambo wrote: It's extraordinarily difficult to separate the biological attributes of maleness from the gender constructs of manliness. From the moment of birth we have gender constructs attached to our sex, meaning there is not a moment in life where we can access it without using those constructs. Things like the intelligence statistics Vraith quotes would seem to be inherent, but it's a hard call to make.

I'd give more weight [though I give some already] to the social constructs if it weren't for the multi-species parallels [and some of the differences that make a difference that we have begun to identify].
As it stands, I would say our primary hope of overcoming some of the negatives/dangers is that we ARE influenced by constructs, so could, in theory, build better ones...a good start would be deconstructing most absolutist/fundamentalist religious ones.

Vraith wrote:

Cambo wrote: It's extraordinarily difficult to separate the biological attributes of maleness from the gender constructs of manliness. From the moment of birth we have gender constructs attached to our sex, meaning there is not a moment in life where we can access it without using those constructs. Things like the intelligence statistics Vraith quotes would seem to be inherent, but it's a hard call to make.

I'd give more weight [though I give some already] to the social constructs if it weren't for the multi-species parallels [and some of the differences that make a difference that we have begun to identify].
As it stands, I would say our primary hope of overcoming some of the negatives/dangers is that we ARE influenced by constructs, so could, in theory, build better ones...a good start would be deconstructing most absolutist/fundamentalist religious ones.

We can and should deconstruct any construct, but never wholly escape from them, as they are essential to communication. I think the answer is in literacy- recognise constructs as a useful tool rather than a reality.

Reality is what people believe, think, feel or experience. It's not objective, and therefore objectivism is practically impossible.

For most people, the constructs are the reality.

--A

Av: I agree, and wasn't putting forward an argument for objectivism.

Perhaps a better way to put it would be we need to recognise the particular constructs we operate in are not the reality.

Avatar wrote:Reality is what people believe, think, feel or experience. It's not objective, and therefore objectivism is practically impossible.

For most people, the constructs are the reality.

--A

Very Foucault-ian. And also true in an even worse way because even our subjectivism is guided by constructs put upon us before we even have an "I" or perspective. Many are almost impossible to even recognize in ourselves, let alone root them out and manipulate/alter/reconstruct them.

Yea, Cambo, one tool to at least make the attempt is literacy. There are some others.
But at some point we reach the constructs interface with what IS biological.
Men are more volatile. Many of our constructs are "designed" to channel that in various ways. And that's the place where we need better ones.
It's the old story of a child that, whenever angry the caretakes says "you aren't angry, you're just tired." 30 years later you end up with a person who, quite literally, is often "tired," or "worn out" and almost nothing will help them because they have no tools to deal with anger, don't even know they are angry...and when it does break through, it isn't a manageable release, it's an explosion. [sometimes just a shout of "DAMNIT!" followed by a sigh, and a soft "sorry, I'm just exhausted. But it can be much worse/more dangerous].
Similar structures and weaknesses/failures apply to other things than anger.

Of course the focus shouldn't just be on men as perpetrators here. Women receive more hatemail than men from both men and from other women.

Cambo wrote:I agree, though, that however the qualities of maleness come about, there is something volatile about us.

This may be related to suffering. Cambo recently posted a wonderful clip on compassion here. In the video the speaker talks about the centrality of suffering to compassion.

Men do not do suffering well, for whatever reasons. It is here that I personally believe that transformation and growth are possible. The capacity for the female/feminine is present in men as is the capacity for the male/masculinity in women (if they want anything to do with it ). To activate the female capabilities within them, men need to learn how to accept suffering. Here culture is a major barrier. Suffering is seen as weakness and if there is one thing that a Western man cannot show, it is weakness; 'boys do not cry'.

Murrin wrote:Of course the focus shouldn't just be on men as perpetrators here. Women receive more hatemail than men from both men and from other women.

Why do you think this is, Murrin?

u.