Truth vs Misogyny.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UQ6IxYaD774

The interview on CNN.

Doesn't Chris look FUCKING AWESOME!

I so wanna have that man's babies, you have no idea.

(I dropped that in for the Liars Team so they would have something else over which to go into their usual fit of uninformed ecstacy - see, there's context here of which the entire planet with the exception of Chris and I are unaware. It 's a joke I had with RB more than a year ago. But let them have their fun, their lives are so empty without me. I even prompted them to get their own blogger ids. It's so cute.)

To memer, thanks for your considered input. I got it, even if "someone" didn't.

To Sarah, I still haven't the first clue what you're on about but as long as you're enjoying it, it's all good. (You're still 2-0 down in group im windows, though.)

I wanted to address this shady notion of misogyny on the internet in this post. Without dredging up links all over the place and quoting every female blogger I can find who knows what's going on, I just wanted to let any of them know that it is by no means some peculiarly male trait to cast aspersions at members of the opposite sex because they happen to be female.

Being male, I get accused of wanting to tap everything on two legs, if not everything that's living and breathing. Those who know me well enough know beyond any shadow of doubt that I'm just not interested. Those who care even know what it was that made procreative recreational activity less important to me than studying the nature of amoeba at the bottom of the ocean.

Last night, some silly troll, a 27/f/VA wanted to cyber with me.

The conversation went something like this...

"You're there!"
"yes, I'm here, despite the hour of the day..."
"Wanna cyber with me?"
"I don't cyber."
"I'm sitting between your legs now, stroking your manhood."
"I don't cyber. It's like phone sex on serious tranquilisers."
"I'm unzipping your fly now and taking out your dick."
"You don't get it do you. I don't cyber..."
"I'm stroking you to hardness now...."
"Oh I get it. You're not a real person, you're a sexchat bot."
"What's a bot?"

And so it went on...

Now, at the risk of breeching a confidence, here's a bit of conversation I had with one of the youngsters...

[00:31] Seth: Hey Paul
[00:31] Rat: Hi Seth
[00:31] Seth: I'm forgetting, hows your math skills?
[00:32] Rat: at your level, probably questionable, but I'll have a crack at anything you've got.
[00:33] Rat: Knowing how things are though, we could probably work through a difficult problem together.
[00:33] Seth: :)
[00:33] Seth: ok..its saturday and I jsut can't seem to get this to work...its basic algebra..
[00:33] Seth: I just need to simplify these three equations into one
[00:33] Seth: and well I'm jsut not getting it done
[00:33] Seth: I'm trying to make it so I can have oen equaiton to graph.
[00:34] Rat: ok, algebra isn't too difficult.. lemme have it.
[00:34] Rat: algebra is philosophy in maths. I'm fairly good at philosophy.[00:35] Seth: equation 1. Fd= (.5) * (1000) * (v^2) * (.004516) * (.5) equation 2. v = N / 1.6
[00:35] Seth: equaiton 3 = N = 28-Fd
[00:35] Seth: Perferably I'd like to get it in terms of V..so v = blah blah blah[00:36] Seth: (and please leave the .5, 1000, and all..don't simplfy those by multiplying..)

What we ended up working out was the equations were incorrect because the value of v was meant to be a variable which could be expressed as formula without upsetting the validity of any of the equations. After working that much out, I think he was able to solve the whole problem. He sent me a video of the outcome of the practical experiment.

Here's a quick quiz...

Which of these two conversations was started by an intelligent person and which was not?

Which of these two conversations was sex based and which was not?

Which of the two conversations was started by someone motivated by thoughts of sex?

What sort of bullshit will the Liars Team make of all this? (That's a no brainer.)


The point I'm making here is that this sort of thing is not only not isolated, it's also not restricted to males being pesty, aggressive and/or unpleasant towards females. It goes both ways and it's just as unpleasant for guys who aren't interested in this sort of thing as it is for women who aren't interested.

As for threats of death and rape against Kathy Sierra, neither of which I really believe, btw, (not based on the evidence she gave to CNN which, I would have thought would have been the most compelling she could provide. It was as compelling as a presidential testimony before a grand jury), how about when women make unfounded allegations of rape and threats of violence against innocent men?

What about women threatening men? Faked chatlogs being produced as evidence of harrassment to vilify some poor sod who isn't even aware of what's going on until Mr Plod kicks his front door in. What about women who lie their arses off about men every chance they get? What about women who make all sorts of other claims about those men? What about women playing on the preconception/generalisation that all men are always on the lookout to get their willies wet?

Poor Kathy Sierra got a fright. Then what she did had the potential to ruin the careers of four people who weren't responsible for sending nasty emails, posting nasty messages on her blog, putting up nasty pictures - which, I'm not ashamed to say, I thought were highly amusing. And just to clarify my position on the all revealing email, I wasn't exactly disappointed to see it.

Now then, we can't get those responsible to apologise for what they did because we don't know who they were. But we do know what Kathy Sierra did and I know what women often do and why isn't there any sort of massive media coverage of all the shit women throw at men on the internet?

If all you arse-monkeys want to establish some sort of standard for internet or blog conduct, how about you establish one that isn't preceded by the word "DOUBLE" first.