14th November (Issue 1238) - The Courier

12 THE COURIER Monday November 14 2011commentNo place on blogs for new ‘cyber-chauvinism’Lauren StaffordInternet ‘trolling’ started in the1980s. It is not a new phenomenon. A‘troll’ is deined as someone who goesout of their way to unsettle an onlinecommunity by leaving abusive commentsor interrupting discussions,usually with the deliberate aim ofprovoking other members. It’s truethat any website soliciting commentsis often subject to this kind of abuse.Men insulting men, women insultingwomen, people expressing discriminatoryremarks about race or sexualpersuasion. These all exist online.However, misogynistic hate speechis particularly prevalent. It’s not exclusivelydirected at feminist bloggerseither, it seems that women expressingany kind of sentiment are targets.In the last week, blogger Sady Doyleresponded to the debate by postingthe hashtag #mencallmethingson Twitter. Now it’s gone viral andwomen around the world have beensharing their stories. This revealed ahorrifying array of comments whichwere not only sexist, but also sexuallythreatening.I asked a fellow student about herexperience of sexism online.“I got told to staple up my c***once during an online debate. I wasalso told by a guy I’d never met beforethat I was ‘too ugly to f***’. Thisquickly descended into about six ofthem repeatedly posting phrases like–‘f***ing ugly c***’, ‘you couldn’t handlemy d*ck’ and ‘just because youcould never get a man, you ugly slag’.This continued for about twenty minutes.I had said nothing to provokethem to mention anything about myappearance or sexual desires”.This tactic of undermining a woman’svoice by reducing her to a meresexual object is common. It seems, if aman can portray a woman as a vesselfor sex and sex alone, her opinion isno longer valid. We live, supposedly,in a progressive, society yet there issomething inherently caveman-likeabout these attitudes.Kelly tells me that she’s not deterredfrom commenting online but the situationmade her wary.“I felt like I needed some validation,that I wasn’t being stupid, thatit wasn’t okay for them to be sayingthese things to me. The speed withwhich they became aggressive andthreatening was frightening”.You might argue, what’s the fuss?It’s only name-calling. These are notphysical attacks and there are nobruises to show for them. After all,they can even be called impersonal.It’s only the internet and everyonesays nasty things online. Nevertheless,it’s still discrimination, even ifit’s not face to face. For many ‘trolls’being caustic and vitriolic is ine aslong as they’re basking in the backlightof their laptop, feeling safe inthe knowledge that their anonymityis relatively intact. Whilst I do thinkthat those who hide behind the guiseof the internet are cowards, this kindof behaviour is often relentless, blindlyhate-illed and quick to escalate. Itrelects the mentality of a would-berapist or perpetrator of domesticviolence. Threats to rape or murderare oficially illegal, but currently themaximum penalty for ‘trolling’ is sixmonths in prison. More can be done,supericially at least, to stop ‘trolls’leaving gender-related inlammatoryWomen are now usingonline blogs to speakout against threateningcomments.Photography: baronsquirrel(Flickr)insults on the web. Moderators cantake a more active role on social-networkingsites such as a Facebook andTwitter. Offenders should be traced.Yet, the point is that sexist abuse onlineis only the tip of a very disturbingiceberg. The more that misogyny becomesnormalised in our culture, themore hate speech against women willturn into hate crime.Best of this week’sonline responsesRe: New policies to impact on popular studentareas.JD:The problem is when a neighbour complainsand gets the house number wrong andmeans to complain about another house.The university and the police seem to takea guilty until proven innocent stance anddarken your name to your lecturers, thenwhen found innocent you don’t receive anyapology whatsoever. I sort of understandwhat they’re trying to do but my experienceof this new policy was that it was appallinglyimplemented and I felt probably more harassedby the university and the police whenthe incorrect complaint was made than theneighbours who complained probably did. Idon’t see why I should have to explain mybehaviour in my own private residence tothe university anyway but that’s beside thepoint.Anonymous:I fi nd the reporting of this story quite disappointingif I am being totally honest. Bothon the online version and the print versionof the Courier it all seems very biased. Itdoesn’t seem as if anybody actually askedanyone working for the university or studentunion what their opinion is on this issue. Additionally,I think especially in the print version,but in parts in the online version – thefi gures used are quite misleading. Figuresseem to be banded around for example“7,648 noise complaints, an increase from6,318 the previous year.” Can we pleasebear in mind here that this is the total noisecomplaints made – about other residentsas well as student. If we were to dive intothe fi gures I think you would fi nd that theoverwhelming majority of these numbersare not complaints made against Students– I’m not sure the article does enough tohighlight this….seems like large fi gures arejust being added in for shock value as opposedto actually reporting the truth.Re: Poundland get picky about poppiesAnonymous:It’s horrendous that anyone should be activelytold not to wear something which symbolisespride and respect to those who notonly made the ultimate sacrifi ce in the fi rstand second world wars, but also to those todaywho are fi ghting in Afghanistan. Poundlandshould be ashamed.Re: Five reasons why...whoever suggestedThe Stone Roses reunion is a fl oppy-brainedchump.M:Obviously fake!Will Smith:@M – You’re right. This article is obviouslyfake. OBVIOUSLY.Actually, wait, I have no idea WTF you mean.Cheeky Monkey:I agree with Will Smith, what do you meanthis is fake? a) it exists and b) it’s a bit oflight hearted writing with the intent of puttinga smile on your face. Like this :) whenyou get a refund from the surgeon whoremoved your sense of humor, come backand read it again, you might actually enjoyit. If not, stick to reading page after page onWikipedia. Just stay well clear of anything todo with folklore or legend, as there’s a goodchance it is fake.To respond to this week’s articles visitthecourieronline.co.uk