... but will they recognise it as such?
That's the question!
The feminist bloc of bloggers is plugging the misogynist line like there's no tomorrow in this Kathy Sierra blarney and as far as I'm concerned, the first real misuse of the claim arrived on the BBC website I quoted on Tuesday (or thereabouts, I'm at least 10 hours ahead of the rest of the world in this blogging caper so what's my today is still yesterday for half of you reading this...)
Whenever it was, when it came out, it was a huge load of horseshit. When they pumped it the next day, it became a monument to that biggest of all mounds of horseshit, feminism.
Yes, ladies, feminism is horseshit.
Firstly, lumping all men into one category is exactly the same, in principle, as lumping all women into one category. We don't all hate women. You don't all hate men. That's furphy number 1.
Secondly, not one of you speaks for all of you, just as not one male speaks for all males. That's furphy number 2.
Those are big furphies, ladies. REALLY big.
The one with which I'm concerned though is when one person feels as if they're being victimised.
Leaving aside the contention that even if someone doesn't know they're being victimised they're still a victim (see Dubya as a case in point), because if I go into that, then it would be fair to say that every man, woman and child on the planet is a victim because someone, somewhere is saying nasty stuff about all of us. Almost all of the time, all of us don't give it a second thought so I'm not going to do so here.
But in the case of a person feeling as if they're a victim because of something that has been said in a place where it can be transmitted, copied, expanded, morphed, exaggerated and disclosed in places it was never intended to be disclosed, can a label of sexism be put on it?
There are people who have been blathering anti-ChatRat messages in their own little e-hovel for nigh on 5 months and until recently, I've been well up for the fight even though they have intentionally made victims out of other people, in one case, people I don't even know. Five women and three or four men have made me the biggest topic of negative conversation on their website since about November of last year.
Can I blame the women for being sexist - because I'm a male? Can I blame the men for anything because they're determined I'm a homosexual pedophile?
I could, but it would be horseshit.
Those women aren't being sexist. They just hate my guts. Those men aren't being anti-gay or even anti-pedophile (mores the pity), they're just following the lead of the women who aren't being sexist.
So, there's a core of 8 individuals plus the hangers-on who have spent months copying my words, taking them out of context, adding their own slants and spins and generally being as hateful as their meagre skills permit. They even thought it was a success when one of their number posted MySpace profiles of three teenagers - three innocent and uninvolved teenagers and two of whom I don't even know - in an msn community. Oh yes, that was a major score against Paul.
Who among them gave a second thought to those three kids?
Well, one of the other kids also took offense to what that slug of a man (pictured above) did and found out his home address, phone number and all sorts of other goodies about Trevor. What that kid does with the information is not for me to decide nor influence but I wouldn't want to be in Trevor's shoes.
This is all pertinent to the Kathy Sierra situation because she chose to take blogstuff off the net and into offline life. She also chose to play the misogyny card - a card which is not available to males for obvious reasons.
The parallel is that whilst I sit here and absorb accusation after innuendo after character assassination after lie - only if I were a woman could I possibly complain about the behaviour of the men involved as being on the basis of my being a woman. The fact that I'm not SHOULD prove beyond any doubt that regardless of Kathy Sierra's sex, she would have had to put up with what she got making it an issue of her output and behaviour, not one about her sex.
She's an idiotic parvenu and she is being called on it. That's not sexist. It's not misogynistic. It's a valid observation made for valid reasons.
Those people spouting their own brand of dishonesty and hatred towards me have their reasons and I know what they are. The women started it. Are they bullying me just because there are more than one of them in their website pretending to find what I'm doing worthy of their scorn?
No they are not bullying me. They are just being pathetic in their own little arena and if I don't make clickage upon their website, I can ignore them and get on with doing my own thing with people who enjoy spending their time with me.
Were they bullying me when they were all members of the same community of which I am a member? Still the answer is no because the little x in the top right corner was already when I was. Sure it's not pleasant when it happens, but the fact it can happen is what attracts such vast numbers of people to the internet. Out here, we can say what we want to say and actually have other people hear it.
If Kathy Sierra and those ultra lefty proles at the BBC and other media outlets have their way, even saying rude words will be an international criminal offence.
So Kathy - and all of you who support her - scream your guts out for more regulation. Stop the hatred on cyberspace and make it all a surreal bed of roses where all the fundamentalist Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Taoists, Falun Gongs, Shi'ites, Amish, Buddhists and Carmelites can frolick with innocent abandon, safe in the knowledge that the internet shall be free from rude words, rude pictures and all nastiness of any kind.
Let Sesame Street set the guiding principles of all activity on this wilderness of cyberspace so nobody gets hurt or offended and only the nice people are allowed to be able to contribute.
Silence the complainers, the trouble makers, the finger pointers, the liars, the haters, the idiots, the nutbags and the loudmouths.
Punish people for speaking their minds. Punish them for saying the wrong thing in the wrong place at the wrong time to the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
Let Kathy Sierra have her way and we'll revel in the freedom to post what we want, safe in the knowledge that nobody will say a nasty word about it or have anything negative to say to us.
Make the internet the biggest K-Mart in the history of everything everywhere (and give it a really big shoe department.)
Hang on a minute... just who are the complainers etc.?
Who decides what constitutes "wrong"?
What if two happy-happy joy-joy contributors post divergent happy-happy joy-joy material?
What if my mother doesn't like K-Mart?
Do feminists even know what their "cause" is anymore?
Have any feminists ever stopped to consider the implications of what their demands may mean?
There are a shitload of feminists out there right now all screaming "Misogyny on the internet" and that this male dominated domain of cyberspace means it's hard for women to have a voice and express their opinions because bands of roving misogynistic males constantly hurl abuse and sexist remarks at them.
The roar of ranting feminists is deafening.
It's actually quite frightening. Suppose 50 or 60 thousand feminists and the BBC make so much noise that governments decide it's time to put a stop to cyberbullying and enact laws to prevent it and actually start policing it.
Where then will be the freedoms for the tens or hundreds of millions of women out there like the women who have been attacking me consistently for the last 5 months? Who speaks up for those women? They're doing a fine job all by themselves. Start policing what people can and can't say on the internet then I'm sorry, but those women will surely suffer for it. (When they're not talking about me, they're talking about having group sex with everyone except Smokey the Bear - will that also have to stop?)
Do feminists think of these things before they pull out the misogyny horseshit tactic?
Here's your clue, ladies... you have your rights, you have your freedoms. Use them. Use them well and use them wisely because if you put those freedoms in the hands of others - and those others usually equates to men anyway because even women don't vote for women running for office - then you are going to lose those freedoms. And all of us have the choice to turn off our computers and conduct our businesses in the good old fashioned way so if you don't like cyberspace, don't join cyberspace.
I don't think I've ever seen a K Mart ad on the internet.
