Things I Don’t Understand

Obviously, with a title like this, the post could fill up several volumes. So I am going to limit my confessions of ignorance to the realm of internet writing.

1) What does ZOMG mean? OMG I get, sure, but what the hell is that Z doing there? Zeus Oh My God? Zebra Oh My God? Zzzzzz Oh My God? It pops up flipping everywhere, even in the middle of sentences as ‘zomg’ (lower case I mean) which then looks like a word rather than an abbreviation. Or is ‘zomg’ a word, and thus seperate from ZOMG? Please, oh knowledgeable and trendy internetty people, please explain!- I’ve run out of guesses!

2) Why is the Internet now known as ‘the internets’? Do we have to have plurals for everything now, as with ‘feminisms’ (which is a term I hate although I cannot put my finger on why. Any suggestions welcome)? There is only one internet, right? It’s a big muddle of wires and signals and stuff… but it’s one big muddle, surely?

3) What’s the deal with using ‘z’ as a plural? Internetz, womenz, menz? How is it any more convenient to use ‘z’ rather than ’s’? I guess that ‘z’ is further down on the keyboard, and nearer the left little finger, but does that really make a difference? The only guess I can make on this is that it is some kind of trivialisation (or trivialization, if you prefer)- most of the time when I have seen ‘menz’ it is used to trivialise and mock feminist concerns about the reality of male power/ dominance, and ‘womenz’ (or ‘womynz’) to poke fun at ideas of sisterhood. I suppose a ‘z’ makes something more informal, more childlike in appearance, in the workings of the English language?

4) WHY DO SOME PEOPLE USE CAPS LOCK for some words BUT NOT OTHERS? This is a real, longstanding bugbear of mine (yes, along with all the rest). If your argument sucks, PUTTING SOME BITS INTO capital letters in order to SHOUT AGGRESSIVELY AT THE POOR READER will not help. In fact, I’d argue that it is a CONFESSION OF BEING A POOR WRITER, in the same way that my grammar often makes the same admission for me.

Answers in the comments, please… HELP ME in my total IGNORANCEZ! (oh goddess, writing that last ‘word’ felt awful… must wash keyboard!)

yes, this is going to be a cryptic post…

DISCLAIMER: if you are not guilty of any of the things I condemn in the following rant then I’m not accusing you. So save the personal offense for when I actually intend to accuse you of something. Ta. If your immediate response to my words is defensiveness, you might want to consider why that is.

….because sometimes there is simply too much to wade into. i plan a happier post with ducks.

back to the cryptic- i am constantly disgusted (not surprised, note the difference) by the hatred spat at us feminists by some of our supposed male ‘allies’. posts full of vile language, insults, hysteria and slurs aimed at women who do not agree with them. reasoned argument is reduced to ‘fuck you’ and whines of ‘why won’t you let me play? just because i’m an abusive asshole!’ these guys would not know feminism 101 if it came up to them, kicked them where it hurts and said ‘hey, moron, don’t be a bastard to women’.

of course the response will always be ’so i can’t criticise you because you’re a woman? that’s so misandric’. do i need to point out why this is disingenuous? oh let me count the ways…

1) abuse does not constitute an argument, and your sexism is blatant in the language you use
2) there are things men have no right to comment upon in a feminist discussion, so shut up and listen, even if it hurts you or you don’t like it
3) we’ve heard your dumbass abuse before. originality just isn’t one of your virtues
4) men using language to intimidate and humiliate women online? it’s misogyny, darlings. it doesn’t matter if you think you’re doing it for the greater female good, or for your own pathetic movement. whether your target is a feminist woman or a right wing woman or any other woman, it’s still misogyny.
5) pretending you find radical feminists’ arguments ‘funny’ in order to show your contempt is just as nasty as calling us all bitches, or whatever. if you can’t be civil, shut your mouth.

this post is very unplanned, and now i’m really not sure who it is even aimed at! i mean if i’m talking to the misogynists, it’s pretty pointless because it’s not like they’re reading here, or that even if they did that they would change their behaviour. and the women who are experiencing this crap already know everything i have said- it’s not exactly a damned revelation. i suppose it is the result of spending the last week or so trying not to lose my temper in the blogosphere (and not always succeeding, as no doubt my friends will have noticed).

so i suppose this is just my anger at what i see time and time again, what i am completely sick of, exhausted by and demoralised by. it is my frustration at the absolute refusal of these men to look at what they are saying and doing, their assumption that their twopence is always welcome and appropriate… in short, their insufferable self-importance.

i admit this post is passive-aggressive, so don’t bother pointing it out.

i’d like the opinions of my sisters on this… i feel as if i’m winding myself up into an angry little gordian knot with all this, like i’m going crazy…

Don’t be fooled I: the adventures of Mr Charmless

I know I said I’d be back in the New Year, but I’ve had a post brewing for a while which refuses to stand and wait any longer- and I don’t want it to go cold. Anyway, it’s only seven hours away from 2008 where I am…

This is the first in what I hope will be a series of posts about the common ‘arguments’ and insults used to challenge and deride feminists. I am hoping to concentrate particularly on arguments coming from anti-feminist men, as they are prevalent, and are hard to stand against because they appeal to commonly held beliefs and attitudes about women, feminists and the way in which the world works.

I. The ‘feminists are conspiracy theorists’ line

Sometime ago, somewhere on the web, I read a rant by a random anti-feminist male (who will be hereon known as ‘Mr Charmless’)against the feminist critique of high-heeled shoes. It was a simple sentence, something along the lines of ‘yeah, the radfems say that men make women wear high-heels so that they won’t be able to run away when the men try and rape them’. This was said in order to invite laughter and ridicule against those feminists who critique harmful beauty practices, insinuating that such feminists think that every man is in control of every woman, and every shoe, and that every man is therefore part of a big planned and plotted conspiracy to harm women and keep them helpless. The point of this disingenuous statement is to force women reading to seperate themselves from radical feminist theory of beauty in order that they are not seen as paranoid, or ‘crazy’. Only a crazy person, insinuates our gallant gentleman, could believe that there is anything wrong with high-heeled shoes, because any person who suggests that believes that men are in a constant conscious conspiracy against women, and do nothing except look for opportunities to rape them. Stay away from the radfems; they’re weird!

Now let’s have a look at the actual feminist arguments concerning high-heeled shoes. The feminist critique points out that human beings are not designed to walk around permanently on tip-toe, that such shoes as force one’s feet to do so put immense pressure on the toes, cause blisters, bleeding, and have been linked to various medical complaints by doctors. Feminists further note that the walk of women in high-heels is wobbly and insecure, giving an air of helplessness, and most certainly therefore the shoes do impede movement, thus restricting the woman’s overall physical freedom and lowering her chances of being able to run without breaking or twisting her ankle. Obviously, there are different types of heels, and different heights, with different degrees of danger and immoblisation.

In women’s magazines, women are encouraged to wear these shoes because they go with various outfits which are worn on particular occasions (can you imagine wearing a ballgown with flats?). If you are to attend a particular event which requires you to wear a posh dress, you will find yourself having to wear heels. No, you won’t be arrested if you don’t wear the dress and heels, but you may be laughed at if you don’t, considered scruffy, inappropriately dressed, sent away, seen as awkward or (the horrors!) even unfeminine. Magazines also tell women they should wear high-heeled shoes because they make legs look thinner and because they give them a ’sexy’ walk. Why should one’s legs have to appear thinner than they are? Because modern beauty standards dictate a slim female body as sexy in the Western world. Why should one have to have a ’sexy’ walk? Why does one want to if it means pain and potential injury? Who is it that stares at women’s legs, and judges them to be sexy or otherwise? You know the answer.*

So the feminist argument summed up: High-heeled shoes cause health problems, restrict physical freedom, and do those things in the name of ’sexiness’ or ‘femininity’. They primarily benefit men, who are the main judges of women’s physical ’sexiness’.

Nothing in this critique says ‘each man is deliberately and consciously forcing women into high-heels against their will in order that women are vulnerable to rape’. This critique notes, rather, that these potentially damaging items of footwear are considered sexy because they make women more physically restricted and vulnerable. It notes that men are the primary beneficiaries of women’s ’sexiness’. This critique looks into the reasons why high-heeled shoes are considered necessary and suitable wear despite their danger, and concludes with some discomforting notes on what ’sexiness’ means in patriarchy.

These are the questions that are asked, and must always be asked, by feminists:
- who does X (in this case, high-heeled shoes) primarily benefit?
- what does X do in the world, or rather, what are its functions and consequences?
- why does a critique of X, supposedly a minor issue which should be beneath the notice of political commentators, induce such hysteria in Mr Charmless? What is at stake for him?
- what does Mr Charmless’ argument suggest about himself, and about the view he wants others to have of feminists?

In this case, Mr Charmless uses ridicule to supposedly denounce an argument that makes him uncomfortable: ‘the feminists think that all men are having meetings to work out how to rape you, that’s how insane they are’. If you don’t laugh at his dubious accusation, you will end up lumped in with the insane feminists who supposedly think this. The accusation of believing in a ‘conspiracy theory’ is a tried and tested method of shutting one’s opponents up; here it is used to divide women against each other and discourage critique of the patriarchally accepted. To put it crudely: Mr Charmless enjoys the sight of women in high-heels, and thinks he is owed this. Just as any critique of pornography will cause him to clutch his precious magazines to his chest and wail ‘censorship! Help me Larry!’, so any suggestion that what gets him off is not harmless or his right to possess will lead him to ridicule you. It is the only weapon he has left once you have swept the rug from underneath his feet.

One could debate, of course, whether Mr Charmless’ reaction is indeed a genuinely held belief: perhaps he does truly believe that feminists believe in a conscious conspiracy with meetings and a plan of action. I suppose it’s possible, but that would make him at best an incredibly poor reader, and at worst, just plain stupid. Most of these ilk are not stupid, and I would say that they are just frightened and disingenuous. At any rate, if such a critique gets such a reaction, you do not need to shrink away. Refuse to accept his image of you. I would also see the image of feminists imagining men deliberately and consciously planning each and every misogynistic act as what Mary Daly** would refer to as a ‘patriarchal reversal’: in order to contain his fear of women reacting against him, Mr Charmless projects the paranoia of ‘conspiracy theory’ onto feminists. After all, if it can be made to be their belief, and not his, it can be safely laughed at and dismissed

* If you’re interested in this, I strongly advise you to read Sheila Jeffreys’ amazing book Beauty and Misogyny. There is a fantastic section on high-heels and their fetishisations and it is a real eye-opener. Plus she is just an incredible writer and visionary.

** In Gyn/ Ecology

Things I have learned from being spammed by morons

My detractors seem to believe that it is important that the whole of the feminist internet knows these facts which have so far deluded us. Rather than make you sift through the nonsensical misogynistic tripe (Goddess praise comment moderation!), I am going to publish their gems of wisdom for all to see! Here is what I have learned….

About myself

I am worse than Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan
because I didn’t let these friendly chaps comment on my site, and we all know that’s how oppressive regimes start.

I think I speak for all feminists
I’m not sure why this is true, but a random male commentator said so it must be

EVERYONE hates me
Random male commentator, on the other hand, CAN speak for everyone

I gave the trolls exactly what they wanted, which makes me stupid
The smart women ignore hate speech and get on with it, and don’t take offence at rape and murder threats

I’m a hairy-beavered pseudo-intellectual
Real intellectuals wax, baby!

I’m a hypocrite
Because I actually go around all day beating people up, or something

I am the worse thing ever for women
Well, I am worse than Hitler, let’s not forget!

I have issues with men and need to see a psychologist
Because I suggested that rape is bad and that rapists should stop raping…

I should be in the kitchen
But I’m not hungry!

I spew hate speech
It’s amazing how these fellows know exactly what’s on my blog without reading any of it…

I am a man hater
I think this is because I suggested that men are human beings and responsible for their behaviour

I’m very smug
*smiles in a superior manner at the screen*

I’m an elitist
Presumably because I think that misgynist rapists are beneath me

I’ve ‘fucked up’ the internet
Damn straight

I am terrible with figurative language because I made fun of the idea of men hitting each other all the time
Because making fun of men is far worse than one threatening to knock me out

I’m a bitch
Well, that’s old news

About hateful comments including threats of sexual violence

They come from 16 year olds and therefore should be ignored
Because 16 year olds cannot control themselves and are under no obligation to behave decently

The comments are tongue-in-cheek
Silly me for missing it! It’s all in my head!

The comments are deliberately inflammatory
And if it is deliberately inflammatory you are a fool for getting inflamed and you should not be offended. If they were accidentally inflammatory, you can get upset, presumably. If they mean it it doesn’t matter. Hell, now I’m confused.

About my detractors

They aren’t anti-feminists
They just do a really good impersonation of them

They want ‘feminazis’ off their interweb
Because these charming 16 year old non-woman-hating gentlemen are protecting freedom of speech…

Now doesn’t that feel better? Isn’t everything so much clearer now? If I were to sum up the information in three words, those words would be….. Shut Up Bitch.

And let me sum up my response in one word…. NO

UPDATE- the News at Stupid O’ Clock

I am also a c—, and am informed that calling a woman that is not anti-feminist….. riiiiiight….
I have my head up my ass and I still need a psychiatrist. Good to know. Hang on, if that’s my problem then you’ve told me already. What’s the psychiatrist gonna say?
‘Further’ now has multiple spellings
Trolls can be proud of their inability to use the correct form of your/ you’re
And abusive comments left on my thread are arguments that must be heard, and my refusal to indulge the vanities of abusers by thus publishing means I can’t answer objections to my politics.
Oh, and I don’t have balls. Well duh.

The power of words: I

Words are picked, consciously or not, to have a particular effect upon the reader. There is a weight of meaning behind a word, which is called up in the reader’s mind when s/he comes across it. I have argued before that words are used as weapons, and that to regard them as ‘harmless’ is to ignore the damage they can do, particularly to marginalised people. Likewise, certain ‘heavy’ words and phrases are used to discredit feminist arguments, with the intention that the history and unpleasantness they imply dissuade the reader from hearing what feminists have to say.  Just use the words, regardless of their suitability, and people shudder. I’m hoping that this will be a series (mostly because I don’t have the energy to write about all the words I’m thinking of right now), so here’s the first phrase I will consider, brought to you by, like all the others, the letters B and S.

Brainwashing
Radical feminists are frequently accused of regarding women as ‘brainwashed’. The phrase implies a lack of conciousness, suggesting that one’s mind has been thoroughly cleaned of information, becoming a blank canvas on which the powerful can project their own chosen images. As well as this, ‘brainwashed’ is seen as an insult towards the one with the cleaned brain- that person is stupid and incapable of thinking for themself. Radical feminists have never this said about women.

What radical feminists have said, however, is that women are subject to psychological pressures that men either do not experience, or that they experience to a lesser degree. The messages demanding that women be ‘attractive’ in appearance, that they should cover their faces with artificial colouring because they are not acceptable as they are, that they should teeter on stilts, wear clothing that apologises for their physical ‘flaws’, be polite and caring despite the provocation, are evidently all around us, and it hardly counts as being ‘brainwashed’ to be affected by such messages.

Any suggestion that women might act differently if they lived without such pressures is terrifying to patriarchal thinkers, as it implies that there is a place and time where patriarchy could be absent, could not exist. So it is far easier for those wounded by such a suggestion to accuse radical feminists of regarding women as blank canvases. It won’t occur to them that the very fact radfems bring up the issues of beauty rituals and inner patriarchs proves they don’t regard women as being ‘brainwashed’ – if they thought that way of women, why would they bother discussing it? Brainwashed people are a lost cause.

If W suggests that X regards Y as brainwashed, W is demanding that Y stop listening to X, insinuating that W, and only W, has Y’s interests at heart. W is also suggesting that if Y were to take notice of X, it would be an admission of weakness on Y’s part. And W is seldom asked to prove that what s/he says about X’s intentions is true.

Ask Laurelin: searches that led them to me

Ask Laurelin

female muscles kicked- I’m happy to show you how I kick with my female muscles. Now stand still.

laurelin needs- chocolate, silly jokes (submissions welcome), her muse (currently snoring), the world to completely change in order to become a suitable environment for women to thrive in, tiger balm.

males have higher iqs; men and women’s IQS- To quote the amazing Charlotte Perkins Gilman: ‘the brain is not an organ of sex. As well speak of the female liver’ (It’s related to the subject!). I already demolished this ‘women stoopid’ nonsense here.

trudi styler vagina- that would be filed under ‘None Of Your Business, Pervert’.

trudi styler revealing dress- see above.

cricket hater- I like the noise they make. Although I’m never sure why the poets call it a ’song’.

raisin allergies- suck like a vacuum. I’d avoid grapes as well if I were you. Which in this case I am, as I am allergic to raisins and I avoid grapes, but I’m not actually you because I didn’t search this myself…. I’m going cross-eyed.

women independance [sic] comment- I will just note here that true independence requires financial, emotional and physical security, all of which women are deprived of to varying degrees.

pro prostitution speeches- I personally side with the radical feminist stance on this issue as expressed by Finn Mackay here. Here is my take on pornography and freedom of expression. Differing opinions on prostitution are discussed by the socialist feminists Volsunga (here and here) and Alecto.

face picture of eating something sour-

what excuse for kerb crawling- there are none.

ocd female male- both sexes can have OCD.

a woman’s sexual past- is (here we go again) None Of Your Business. If she doesn’t want to tell you, then she doesn’t have to. Go get a life.

abi titmuss, my bum- I doubt she has even the slightest interest in your backside, mate.

walnuts roof of mouth itches- ’tis an allergy. Stop eating them. Yeah, it’s annoying. I liked them too. *shrugs*

kungfu for women- great fun! Hope you enjoy!

sharleen photo- It helps if you use ‘image search’, sweetpea.

troll species- So many!

what the fuck is going on with telewest- I don’t know. I’ve asked several times, but they just stick their fingers in their ears and yell ‘prude!’ 

why men honk at women on the street- because they’re jerks.

majority of NZ prostitutes are trafficke[d]- Information on trafficking in women can be found here.

EROTIC BLOGS- I can’t help you, I’m one of them prudes!

ocd fear someone will die- you’re not alone.

Random opinions

“watch deep throat”- “No. I have a conscience. Look it up some time, moron”.

“respect is…”- essential. And in the dictionary.

Everyone with OCD should either piss off- or do what? Finish your sentences for you?

den of the biting beaver sucks- Has BB dared to question your privilege again? Awww, poor little thing, stuck squished on the bottom of her troll-stomping boots!

honk at women on the street- do it and I will beat several shades of tar out of you.

should women let themselves be fucked by [        ]- there is no ’should’. There is nothing sexual that women ’should’ do. It’s her body, and she can do what she wants with it. Whatever you want is irrelevant, it’s her decision. And if you try and badger a woman into something she doesn’t want to do, it’s rape. Leave her alone.

We now live by women’s rules comments bu[t]- Have you checked out who rules the world lately?

Get some industrial strength therapy and stay away from women

fucking two sisters

unclothed tribal pictures

wifes getting fucked in front of their h[usbands]

real life honeymoon sex pictures
india

life size female soft dummies for sale

Rapists: fuck off and die, do the world a favour

girls getting fucked in there sleep

unwilling chicks getting fucked

raped and tortured

girls getting fucked in their sleep

baby escort tottenham court rd

picturs 12years girl raped

animals fucking women

girls getting deflowered

various torture methods for romeo and ju

girl getting firmly fucked by dog

girls getting fucked by M.S. 13

girls being fucked and beaten

rape like the rain you might as well enj[oy]

lose cunts being fucked

unwilling+rape+sex+no+hard+fuck+free

Species of Troll II- More Varieties Spotted

Other species of troll that I neglected to mention in my last post were pointed out to me by other bloggers who find themselves Troll-watching on a regular basis. Here are new definitions of these other strange beings of the Troll genus. I hope to produce the first comprehensive Troll Dictionary for the use of feminist bloggers. I am also considering the Troll Species Drinking Game, where for every appearance of one particular type of troll, or stupid troll sentiment expressed one must down a shot of one's favourite beverage.  

Wilfully Ignorant Troll (spotted by Bookdrunk)

There is one positive aspect to this troll- it is already aware that it doesn't know its arse from its elbow, and so the discerning blogger needn't feel obliged to inform it of that fact. However, it lacks the part of the brain that deals with Personal Responsibility for Knowing Shit, and will automatically point to you, the ever patient author, as the reason it cannot follow the argument. Any suggestion that it go and do its own research coz you ain't the homework bunny, or that it bears some of the blame for its own denseness will be met with indignation and much phlegm. Even though it hasn't got a clue what you are talking about, it still believes that its Limbaugh-derived dittohead drivel is worth something. It won't do any good, but prodding it with a big pointy stick as it sulks will feel most satisfying to you.  

Lesser Gentleman Troll (also spotted by Bookdrunk) 

This troll wears its delusion on its sleeve- and its shirt, trousers and headgear. It firmly believes that it is the fountain of all knowledge, the most objective of all commentators that can bring enlightenment and calm to any silly females getting emotional about petty concerns such as violence and oppression. Should you fail heed its cry of “Ladies, ladies, there’s no need to be hysterical” (as recorded by Bookdrunk), it will not conclude that it is an annoying, smarmy piece of work who is about as objective as an MRA's defence lawyer, rather it would have you believe that if you even consider getting upset about the topic of the abuse of women that it means all your arguments and experience aren't worth jack. This troll is amongst the attention-seeking group of deluded trolls, and therefore it is intensely amusing to watch its face as it is ignored by all and sundry. 

 “I’m just trying to LEARN” Troll (identified by Biting Beaver)

Ever watchful troll-expert BB describes this species thus: You know, the one who barges into a discussion asking the same question you answered 3 posts ago. You link back to the post and tell them to read it and they refuse, citing that it’s YOUR responsibility to stop all feminist discussion and answer some hypothetical question that will never actually happen in real life (i.e. “Let’s say that a woman and a man are both of the exact same power differential and this man tells the woman the he doesn’t really want to have sex because he has no condoms on him and this woman throws him onto his back and stick his dick inside of her and gets pregnant even though the man didn’t ejaculate and, like a responsible man he pushed her off of him immediately and got dressed and went home. But the preejaculate was still there and she used it to get herself pregnant. Is that rape? And should he have to pay child support?”) And then, when you refuse to entertain the ridiculous-never-happened-in-a-million-years- question they fly off the handle and accuse you of being a fraud or a man hater.

This species is similar to the Wilfully Ignorant Troll in that it assumes that because you are a) female and b) feminist it is your job to drop what you are doing and rush to its aid. It needs your help, and if you don't give it you must be one of those misandrists its right-wing buddies have been telling it all about. Never mind that it doesn't know you from Eve and it could go do its own work- it has a Y chromosome, and you have two Xs. Therefore, you must serve its penis-owning little brain.

Pseudo-Academic troll (species named by Feminist First).

This troll is very small with a big mouth, and believes that by standing on top of the hardback editions of the complete works of Every Learned Misogynist That Ever There Was, and spewing out their words it can win any argument. It is also under the illusion that it is very clever, and will even select carefully cherrypicked quotes from feminists in order to further its agenda. Any appeal made by the feminist to the real experiences of real women will be intellectualised away, as this troll is much more comfy sitting in the world of theory than hearing about the world of female suffering about which he has no comprehension. It tries its best to hide its antagonism in long passages of theory, but eventually, when called on it, it will raise its hands in dismay and whine about how you have offended it, as if the worst thing any feminist could do is insult a male intellectual. Since apologies cause this species to gloat, this blogger suggests telling it that its precious feelings are worth very little, and that if it truly wants to learn, it should shut up and listen.

Psychopath Troll (hat tip to Spotted Elephant)

This troll is among the most vile and degraded of all species, as it takes great pleasure in the suffering of others. It will come along to a sensitive post and add some hilarious comment such as 'rape is funny'. This troll is a coward, a worthless piece of shit. It wants two things a) your pain and b) your silence. Give it neither. Just delete it. And never stop telling the truth, as your feminist sisters will always be there. 

Drive By troll (a submission by Dubhe) 

This troll is unable to keep more than one thought in its head at a time, and completely insensitive to context or just making fucking sense. Its pattern is simple: it comes to a blog, and posts the same (or several very similar in the more advanced of the species) trollish comment on every single thread. The subject of the thread is of no interest to the Drive By Troll as it has one aim, and that is to say that really important thing that no-one else has thought of, that no-one else has ever heard, and that everyone needs to hear! What this dipshit has to say will change your world! You will never listen to any well-thought out feminist arguments ever again! It will show you the way! You will throw your feminist credentials into the bin, and fill out your application for Misogyny Central Fuckwits International in lovely green ink! Thank God it showed up and wowed you with its comment! You could have spent the rest of your life in dire ignorance!

Rewind and Repeat Troll (the second submission by Dubhe).

A close relative of the Drive By Troll, this specimen has one craptastic argument and intends to keep it that way. It will charge in (one can hear its clompy feet coming a mile off) and begin The One Argument To Rule Them All. Needless to say, the argument will suck, it will owe nothing to logic or experience, and will be one that the feminist blogger has heard again and again, and confronted again and again. But this species knows that it is always, no matter how much what it says is shown to be bullshit, 100% right about its pet topic. The peculiarity of this species is that once you have completely trounced its entire argument, it vanishes, and the whole feminist blogosphere breathes a sigh of relief. One would then be forgiven for thinking it had learned a valuable lesson. But these species is incapable of adapting to changing circumstances, or to altering its world view when that world view has been shown to be helplessly flawed.

So it returns, unaware that if an argument has been shown to be wrong the first time, it will not be right the second, third or fortieth time when posted on a different thread. no matter how many times you argue with the Rewind and Repeat Troll, it will never get the message. Make it a big 'cease and desist' notice proclaiming 'I hearby remind you that we had this confrontation on the (insert date) on the (insert topic) thread, and you lost. Your argument still sucks, and will not be answered with anything other than the Delete button'. Then laminate it, and frame it. Then apply it to the troll's head liberally and with some force.

The Copy/Paste Troll (a subspecies of the Rewind and Repeat Troll, as described here by Devious Diva) 

[It] writes the exact same comment on multiple blogs regardless of the subject and then expects to be taken seriously. Notoriously hard to track down because of their blog-hopping capabilities but once captured, quickly crawl away with tail firmly between its legs, never to be seen again.

The Closet Skinhead Troll (as described by David) 

These are the guys (they are all guys) who drop by and start off slow, sometimes ever reasonable, before going off on the plight of the poor downtrodden White Male. After that, it’s off to Goebbels Lite land.

Related to the MRA Talking Points Troll, this species is of the belief that the most oppressed members of human society are heterosexual white males- you know, the ones that rule the world? They are oppressed because of the Great Feminist Conspiracy which dares to suggest that human beings who aren't carbon copies of the heterosexual white males are also- shock, horror!- human beings. And of course by 'I am oppressed' it actually means 'my privileges are being taken away from me'.

Know Thine Enemy- Species of Troll

Disclaimer: I know I said that trolls are best ignored, and I stand by that opinion- not that I'm always level-headed enough to take my own advice. But I think it helps to have a field guide of troll species, so that feminists can be prepared for the delusional onslaught. 

The 'U Whoredykebitchprude' Troll

A member of this species can usually be relied upon to prove whichever point it was that you made in the post they were replying to. It is nice and easy to weed out, and the delete button was invented as a response to its banal utterances. Argument and logic is beyond this species, and it is blissfully unaware that its saying it is so doesn't make it so. Not much point in trying to talk to these ones, unless you just fancy a laugh. They usually come out with a single sentance opinion such as 'u r a hairy legged dyke' (unaware, of course that none of that is actually an insult), 'feminism is crap u r all bitter bitches', 'hahahahaha I pity u u hate men.'

Never expect this species to engage feminists in debate on any intellectual level. It is simply not capable of that. It can be brushed aside with the back of one's hand, and should be dealt with as one would deal with a fruit fly- as a nuisance, but a harmless nuisance.

The Male Entitlement Troll

These creatures often come pretending to be interested in discussing feminism, or the future of feminism, which, surprise surprise, they see in a completely different light to, you know, actual feminists. According to them, feminists have to deal with the way in which white heterosexual males are routinely and systematically oppressed by… um…. white heterosexual males. If a feminist dares to suggest that women are the primary victims of male crime X, the troll will immediately respond 'but it happens to men too!', thereby insisting that 1% of the sufferers of a particular crime get the same amount of attention as the 99%. If a feminist points out that the perpetrators of said crime are 99% of the time male, the troll will reply in one of two ways. Either it will say 'it's not men that commit crime X because then you're saying it's all men and then you've offended me which is obviously the worst thing you could ever do', or it will say 'but here's an instance when a woman committed crime X to a man. Men are soooo oppressed!'

Along with this dubious logic, this troll assumes that it has the right to barge into feminist spaces and be listened to, obeyed, and taken seriously. Any suggestion that it help itself to a nice warm cup of Shut The Fuck Up will be answered with 'you're censoring me!' This call often provokes laughter and derision in the feminist foe.

The MRA Talking Points Troll

This species is very similar to the 'Entitlement' Troll in that it has the same delusional belief that it is entitled to be heard simply because it has a Y chromosome. It spews an acidic form of bile at its opponents which, while it looks and sounds revolting, dissolves when countered with logic, derision, facts and reality. This troll may attempt to appear as if it has done its homework, by citing 'facts' and figures, and will even sometimes include references to where it has found them. However, despite its mighty display it is not to be feared, as the majority of those references will lead the feminist back to an MRA site or some study from 1976 that was discredited twenty years ago. 

It may even, as a last ditch effort to derail feminist conversation, claim that we are at present living in a matriarchy, in which men have no real political influence (don't read this troll's words while drinking; hysterical laughter and soda consumption are not to be attempted at the same time). It will invariably have a story of how it or its associate was screwed over by some eeeeevil woman, and it will expect sympathy and attention because of it. A reply that it has experienced something akin to what women experience everyday will result in a fresh release of venom. So do it, it's funny!

The Chickenshit Troll

This species can display any of the charactaristics of the three troll types detailed above. It can use any one of a million anti-feminist arguments, but it will invariably sign itself as Anonymous. It is unknown how many there are of this species because it is impossible to tell one from another, since each one goes by the same damn moniker. Pointing out that its behaviour is cowardly in the extreme will often lead to silence or roars of indignation, in which it will claim that it doesn't matter that it refuses to give its name since a name means nothing anyway. It will have no qualms about unleashing tonnes of repugnant insults onto the feminist it is attacking, as it refuses to take responsibility for its actions. Best ignored, or edited.

The Pisstake Troll

This troll has 'evolved' from the Chickenshit Troll, and appears to be a relatively new species. It goes under a name it considers 'feminist', and proclaims agreement with views which no feminist has stated. It mixes up the views of different feminists to claim that feminists contradict themselves, and attracts an audience of the other species of troll to join it in snickering about how clever they all are. It will often direct the feminist to a spoof site where views this troll believes feminists to hold are unimaginatively parodied. Luckily, it can only command the attention of the rest of the troll population, and is best just avoided.

The Nature of the Troll

When I see troll comments, I always imagine the author to be a little furry green monster jumping up to bite at feminist ankles, adorned with a permanent scowl which is the result of chowing down daily on a diet of The Daily Mail, Nuts, Zoo, Ann Coulter and MRA ‘literature’. Unfortunately, although I have not to my knowledge seen any of the trolls I have fought with in the flesh, I believe that they are actual human beings out there, in the world. Now that sucks like a vacuum.

They come to a feminist blog, usually identify themselves as ‘Anonymous’ (I prefer the label ‘chickenshit’ myself), and vomit out the MRA talking points: ‘Women are always lying about rape’, ‘it’s natural for men to act like jerks and women to act like slaves’, ‘any woman objecting to the status quo is a prude/ has hang ups’ (translation: ‘doesn’t want to sleep with me’), ‘because I say it is so it is so!’, ‘feminists don’t care about women in other parts of the world because they have the intelligence to make the links between all forms of misogyny’ (as if feminists were not always on the forefront of fights against poverty, imperialism and human rights abuses). I am naturally [sic] aggressive towards these morons, and feel compelled to argue with them. I put up my facts next to their bullshit, and they spew out more and more hatred, until my rage boils over and I rather resemble a pressure cooker.

You see, I hate what happens to women in this world. I hate the torture, rape, violence, contempt, poverty that they experience. And so when a troll comes in as a representative of the We Hate Women brigade, displaying vile support for all that women suffer, I want to respond, and tell them where to stick their bullshit arguments. But then I am reminded of something Feminist First told me once: ‘You don’t have to play by their rules’.

The truth is, whatever you say to a troll, he is not going to believe you, or admit that he does. He is not going to be convinced, because he has come to your blog especially to piss you off, to divert your energies from your struggles and goals. Trolls existed before the internet. They attacked brave feminists everywhere they spoke up; told feminists that women didn’t need feminism, that they were unnatural women, that they were going to hell, they beat them, they ridiculed them and they went to amazing lengths to shut them up. And why? Because they were afraid, and because, inside they knew that what feminists were talking about was real, that should feminism spread, their male privileges and constructed perverted pleasures would be destroyed. Every time a troll comes a-ranting, whether he polishes his argument with pseudo-intellectual gloss or simply calls you a whoredykebitchprude, he is afraid. And so he should be.

We deal with their arguments everytime we post here in that beautiful space known as the feminist blogosphere. We have carved out a place for ourselves, and the price we pay is that dickheads will come in to try and destroy us, break our unity and compromise our respect and love for each other. We will not let them. None of us need feel obliged to answer every dumbass rant of the troll, every slander, every shot of hatred, because trolls are not interested in rational argument, they are interested only in themselves. We mustn’t let them divert our energy into fighting the stupid.

Non-trolls who read our blogs and are open to argument will listen to us, they will ask us genuine questions and approach us respectfully. They will link to us, speak to us and their passion to make the world a better place for women will be obvious from their words and deeds. They will be ready to examine their own thought processes for misogyny, just as we make it our business to do in ours.

I would suggest that when we want to counter a misogynist viewpoint that we bring it to our own blogs, and post about it. That way we can highlight the bullshit we face without having to waste our precious energies in a slanging match with the wilfully ignorant. We can create the arguments and show them to the world, so that other women and men will be able to know misogyny when they see it. Trolls do not have the right to smear their hatred on our blogs. They do not have the right to free speech in our personal spaces; they have it everywhere else, and one would think that would be enough for them.

Trolls are despicable and infuriating, there’s no doubt about that. But we have the truth on our side, which we should make every effort to spread amongst those willing to listen. Trolls will always be trolls, they are the reactionaries in every society, whose self-esteem and privileges depend upon the maintainance of the status quo. They demand our attention because they think they’re owed it. They’re not. Our attention is far too valuable to waste on them.