In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Wait, is it 2005 again?

Jill

“Back Off, Angry Commenters: Has the Internet unleashed new levels of bile?” by Katie Roiphe:

A new species has risen from the shallows of the Internet: the angry commenter. Sure, there is a long tradition of inspired cranks and interested retirees who have always written letters to the editor, but something in the anonymity and speed and stamplessness of the Internet has unleashed a more powerful and uncontrolled vitriol. I am not here talking about the thoughtful, intelligent comments, which also abound, but rather the bile unloosed, flashes of fury and unexamined rage that pass as “comment.”

BREAKING: People are mean on the internet.

Seriously, people who write asinine, been-done-ten-years-ago pieces like this should not have jobs at major media outlets.

It is possible to write something new and interesting about internet comment dynamics, and online abuse. That does happen, with some regularity. But “OMG commenters can be so MEAN!” is not it. And considering her entire history and basically everything she has ever written, I am genuinely confused as to why Katie Roiphe maintains a job as a “writer.”

37 thoughts on Wait, is it 2005 again?

  1. Given Katie Roiphe’s history, I’m surprised the article isn’t about how people aren’t mean on the internet, it’s just that some people on the internet are thin-skinned whiners who need to man up and stop complaining about things that aren’t even really happening.

  2. It is so not fair that Katie Roiphe has Katie Roiphe’s job (which is being Katie Roiphe), when I could have Katie Roiphe’s job and be better at it. I’ve got all the right credentials except living in New York and having a famous mother. Hmph.

  3. EG: Given Katie Roiphe’s history, I’m surprised the article isn’t about how people aren’t mean on the internet, it’s just that some people on the internet are thin-skinned whiners who need to man up and stop complaining about things that aren’t even really happening.

    *snort*

  5. What really gripes my panties is that this is actually a really interesting topic that could have used a thoughtful and in-depth examination. Maintaining social norms and standards of behavior online is something that we all have a stake in (at least those of us on the ‘nets) and there are a lot of smart people thinking complex thoughts about the balance between freedom and safe spaces. (Including here!)

    But no, Ms. Roiphe just discovered the concept or something, assumed she was the first to do so, whinged about in an uninformed way, failed to think critically, and then, hey, got paid to do it. (I suspect it was prompted by the torrent of unkindness about her previous article on DFW.) Mutter mutter….

  6. People are noticing more abusive behavior on the Web because of some highly publicized tragedies in which people have committed suicide or had their lives ruined by Internet bullying. The case closest to me was Phoebe Prince, a South Hadley high school student who committed suicide after being subjected to vicious abuse at school and on the Web.

    Katie Roiphe might or might not deserve a job as a writer, but hateful behavior on the Internet is a real problem. Our commencement speaker last May, Prof. Martha Nussbaum of the University of Chicago, has even edited a book about it called The Offensive Internet.

  7. Katie Roiphe is complaining about people being mean? Katie Roiphe? She’s quite good at dishing it out.

    Next thing you know, Camille Pagilia will complain that commenters are obnoxious and Hugh Heffner will bemoan the shallowness of people.

  8. @Rinth–people here are aware of hate on the internet–the writers of this blog have had many hateful comments and threats of violence against them. Roiphe’s piece reads as her typical self-indulgent exercise of putting down people who disagree with her, instead of actually investigating an issue. It’s not like the only hateful comments are class warfare by barely literate troglodytes against Ivy Leaguers, which is what Roiphe talks about. As you suggest, it’s kids who are bullied, people who are stalked personally, and comments that suggest not just that the target is disliked but that the target is less than human.

  9. must be chanelling andy rooney. get her a job on 60 minutes and open up the field for some better writer.

    or is that too mean?

  12. What’s quite new and interesting about the online abuse topic is #MenCallMeThings. Not that the rage and vitriol directed at Women Who Have Opinions is new, nor is said women talking about it new, but #MenCallMeThings gave the issue some traction.

    So let’s see if Riophe mentioned anything about gender and online abuse in her article. Oh, she did:

    Though I haven’t admittedly done a scientific study, it’s my impression that angry commenters are a little harder on women writers than male writers, for reasons I am not sure of, though angry commenters themselves are both male and female.

    Yeah, right. So Riophe’s article is really just a backlash against #MenCallMeThings, or I should say a pathetic attempt to write a backlash article. #MenGetCalledMeanThingsOnTheInternetToo!!11!1

  17. rain: Yeah, right. So Riophe’s article is really just a backlash against #MenCallMeThings, or I should say a pathetic attempt to write a backlash article.

    Though there’s hardly a shortage of misogynist women, it’s kind of a facepalm moment that the phenomenon of men using female handles as camouflage when posting abusive things at women on the internet isn’t even considered.

  22. I think rain at #12 is exactly right. That one sentence, and the lack of any other discussion of the subject or reference to others who have discussed it, are the whole purpose of the article. If it seems empty and pointless, that’s because it’s designed to show off what’s *not* there. It’s a public Ignoring of feminists — a demonstration that Katie Roiphe isn’t one of those mean feminazis who goes crying “sexism” over every little bit of obviously misogynist harassment.

  23. Thanks for responding to this Jill (and all of you, really). I just … I saw it come through my feeds from Slate and was like “What … I can’t even …?” And then when I saw the byline I just stopped at the headline because, you know, Katie Roiphe. I don’t understand why she continues to have credibility anywhere, with anyone.

  24. I agree that there are trolls on the internet comment sections.

    However, it’s the height of irony that the woman who writes that there isn’t really discrimination or bias towards women complains about biased abuse.

    I mean, she must of gotten out of her echo chamber of Uncle Toming with “those who count” – the guys in the boardroom and ventured out into the world where there are men and women who challenge her. Where the script of “right opinion” with the kewl guys fails and we aren’t slinking back from challenging it.

    Do you think she ever had to compete for a job in leadership like other women have? Do you think she has had on-the-job bias that kept her from the rewards and job level equal to her experience?

  25. personally I feel that if you’re going to be a blogger, you should get used to the ridicule. not everyone is gonna like every single thing you say and that’s why you’re blogging anyway isn’t it?

  26. Pingback: Wanker of the Day : Lawyers, Guns & Money

  27. Tomorrow, “Bang! Pow! Comics Aren’t Just For Kids Anymore!” gets pulled out of the file cabinet for its 15th publication…

    Rinth de Shadley: People are noticing more abusive behavior on the Web because of some highly publicized tragedies in which people have committed suicide or had their lives ruined by Internet bullying.

    I think there are two separate phenomena at work here: The first is the rise of “cyber-bullying” where people, usually kids, harass someone online who they know in real life, which is what you are referring to. The second, which Roiphe is blathering on about, is the extremely old news that unmoderated comment threads online are often whirlpools of rage and bilious semi-coherent angertyping that (usually) are made by anonymous people against other anonymous or semi-anonymous people. The first is a real problem. The second is something ugly, but ultimate mostly harmless and most people learn to ignore. It’s also been the way of the ‘net since the first Newsgroups and BBSes went online almost 30 years ago.

    (The attacks made online against women in general and feminists in particular that we’ve been talking about lately is sort of a combination of the two phenomena)

  29. Pingback: Links and Descriptions « black is the new black

  30. @Suze @ 24, do I think she has had to compete and endure bullshit? 100 times yes. That’s one of the enticements of Uncle Tom-ism- if you just play along, everything will fall into your lap. No, the patriarchy is still the patriarchy, and she gets fucked by it, too. Are their rewards for her Uncle Tom-ism? Clearly. Also see: Caitlin Flanagan. But Roiphe still gets truckloads of bullshit flung at her, and she’s got no self-respect to retreat to because she’s traded it all away. I’m not saying she walks around in a state of unrelenting misery, but there’s a tortured undercurrent to everything she writes, as well as in Flanagan’s work.

  31. Roiphe’s been called out on snark, and is venting her unhappy surprise. Actually, incoherently angry posts should be viewed as a badge of honor. When teh stoopid start screaming, it’s proof you are hitting the mark with your own posts. You can always recognize truly interesting people by the pitchfork-and-torch mob chasing them.

  32. preying mantis @ 17

    Though there’s hardly a shortage of misogynist women, it’s kind of a facepalm moment that the phenomenon of men using female handles as camouflage when posting abusive things at women on the internet isn’t even considered.

    Since you refer to misogynist women, did you mean to say women using male handles as camouflage? Either way, I don’t think it’s a facepalm moment, nor that those types of situations weren’t considered. Whether it’s men being men, women pretending to be men, or men pretending to be women, there’s a dick involved, and MenCallMeThings includes them. The only configuration that could even remotely be argued as not being included is women pretending to be men to post abuse at women. Is that even a thing? Maybe it was considered and dismissed as a negligible phenomenon?

  33. I actually loved reading the comments on that article. The person who’s comment she quoted in her article responded to her. He writes better than she does. Fact is, the article really wasn’t about mean comments in general, it was really about why are comments so mean to *me*, meaning Katie herself.

  34. but rather the bile unloosed, flashes of fury and unexamined rage that pass as “comment.”

    Dear Katie: Y U SO MEAN TO TEH GOP? 😉

  35. rain: Since you refer to misogynist women, did you mean to say women using male handles as camouflage?

    I think the point is that women are capable of being misogynists, not that they were disguising themselves.

  36. librarygoose @ 33

    I think the point is that women are capable of being misogynists . . .

    Sure they are, but I don’t see where anybody (me? #MenCallMeThings?) is missing that point.

  37. rain: Sure they are, but I don’t see where anybody (me? #MenCallMeThings?) is missing that point.

    I meant that you seemed confused as what preying mantis meant by “misogynist women” and that I thought that it was referring to women being misogynists as well, not necessarily that they were making up guy handles to comment mean things.

Comments are currently closed.