The year is new, but we already have a candidate for the most troubling magazine essay of the year: Amanda Hess on Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet, in the latest issue of Pacific Standard.
Hess takes a reality many people may be only dimly aware of — that female writers come in for an extraordinary amount of abuse online — and fleshes it out with detail, data and personal experience.
The anecdotes, her own and from others, range from the offensive to the terrifying, but there is also a thudding, soul-crushing sameness to them: graphic threats of sexual violence, rape and murder, intertwining and repeating.
Everyone who writes online comes in for abuse, but Hess’ essay describes a form of intimate attack that few male journalists experience. We hear about it over drinks, we catch glimpses of it on Twitter, but it is easy for us to miss how radically different it makes our female peers’ experience.
Hess’ essay is mostly interested in solutions and responses: How women should deal with their harassers; how online forums should police abuse; how the laws surrounding stalking and discrimination might adapt to deal with online threats.
However, it is also useful to think about root causes, and where all the hate and twisted fantasies are coming from. Is this misogyny always latent in a subset of the male population, or are there magnifying forces at work?
One potential magnifier, of course, is the Internet itself, which by its nature is a kind of unreal space for many users — a place where a range of impulses can be discussed, explored and acted out in what feels like a consequence-free zone.
There is some evidence that the emergence of this fantasy space has actually made the real world slightly safer for women: Studies have shown correlations between access to online pornography and lower rates of sexual assault.
However, the flip side is that many men who might have successfully regulated their darker impulses now have what seems like a green light to be “virtually” abusive ... because they are just trying out a role, or because the woman on the receiving end seems no more real to them than a character in a pornographic film.
Another magnifier is ideology. Hess is a feminist who works in culture-war terrain, and there is no question that women writing from that perspective come in for more personal, sexualized abuse than women writing about, say, monetary policy.
Where the personal is political, the political becomes personal more quickly, and the grotesque abuse that liberal, feminist writers can receive for being liberal feminists is a scandal that conservatives, especially, need to acknowledge and deplore.
Many conservative and libertarian women also take a remarkable amount of sexual-political abuse. So it may be that the culture war cuts both ways and a certain kind of left-wing narrative about gender — in which women are expected to hold liberal views just by virtue of being female — can become a license for allegedly progressive men to demean and dehumanize women who decline to play that part.
And then to further complicate matters, there is the phenomenon of intra-liberal misogyny — like the flood of abuse, cited by Hess, that greeted the atheist writer Rebecca Watson when she wrote about sexism and harassment at a skeptics’ convention.
Cases like Watson’s suggest that there is a chauvinist attitude in play here, a kind of crypto-ideology of sex and gender, that does not map neatly onto what we usually think of as culture-war divides.
This attitude is “liberal” in that it regards sexual license as an unalloyed good and treats any kind of social or religious conservatism as a dead letter. However, at the same time it wants to rebel and lash out against the strictures it feels that feminism and political correctness have placed on male liberty and male rights.
Sometimes this rebellion is just coarse and libertine: think of lad magazines, or the world of pickup artists, or Seth MacFarlane on Oscar night. However, where it intersects with status anxieties, personal failure and sexual frustration, it can turn vicious — in effect, scapegoating women (those frigid castrators, those promiscuous teases) for the culture’s failure to deliver a beer-commercial vision of male happiness.
I do not think either the left or the right quite understands this worldview: Feminists tend to see it simply as a species of reaction; social conservatives as the dark fruit of sexual liberation — when it is really a combination of the two. And because it channels some legitimate male anxieties alongside its chauvinism and resentment, it probably cannot be shamed or driven underground — or not, at least, without making its side effects for women that much more toxic.
Instead, it needs to be answered, somehow, with a more compelling vision of masculine goals, obligations and aspirations. Forging this vision is a project for both sexes. Living up to it and cleansing the Internet of the worst misogyny, is ultimately a task for men.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry