Tag: sexism
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott

New Texas Law Shields Online Hate Speech, Terror Threats, And Holocaust Denial

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

It's been a busy couple of weeks for the one-star state. In addition to gaining the cooperation of the Trump-flavored Supreme Court to strip away women's rights, Gov. Greg Abbott has been right on top of the threat to the coronavirus, promising to protect COVID-19 from any effort to slow its spread. It's that kind of dedication that has allowed Texas to both seize the top spot from Florida in new cases and hospitalizations, and support the local mortuary industry with more than 400 deaths per day.

Truly, for Texas energy speculators and mortuary truck rentals, Abbott has brought on a golden age. But even though the governor spent much of his day complaining that President Joe Biden insisting that people get vaccinated was a violation of the rights of businesses—unlike executive orders that forbid companies from requiring that people get vaccinated—he did have time for other things.

One of those things was signing HB 20, a bill that severely limits the ability of large social media platforms to remove disinformation, harmful propaganda, hate speech, and incitement of violence.

This bill is a response to the mythical claims that social media sites are somehow suppressing conservative speech, despite repeated analysis that shows that these sites actually selectively promote conservative voices and place conservatives in positions of power, while actively soliciting for more Republican content. Despite all this, Republicans are certain that, were it not for some "shadow banning" and other devious actions, the brilliant words of conservative tweeters would surely be getting many, many more likes.

And since modern Republican statements are indistinguishable from disinformation about an ongoing pandemic, shot through with vile racism, xenophobia, and misogyny, the bill makes sure that all of those things are protected.

On first reading, the text of the bill might seem to be offering some level of protection. For example, here's what it says about the kind of things that social media can remove. Platforms can take down or edit material that is:

"the subject of a referral or request from an organization with the purpose of preventing the sexual exploitation of children and protecting survivors of sexual abuse from ongoing harassment; directly incites criminal activity or consists of specific threats of violence targeted against a person or group because of their race, color, disability, religion, national origin or ancestry, age, sex, or status as a peace officer or judge; or is unlawful expression."

That long list at the end of this passage—including color, disability, sex, etc.—might seem as if it's offering the kind of protections usually afforded when platforms take down hate speech. But look again. All of those other words are just window dressing. The bill actually allows sites to remove such speech only if it "consists of specific threats of violence." This is the very narrowest definition of incitement to violence. It's the kind of very narrow requirement that has protected both KKK leaders and Tucker Carlson when calling for violence or other harmful acts against groups, without making a specific threat,

By prohibiting social media platforms from removing text that doesn't feature a specific threat, they have created a "must carry" situation, one in which the social media platforms that fit their definition (which seems to be Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, Pinterest, and Snapchat, but could expand to Google, Apple, and others thanks to some broad language) can not remove hate speech or disinformation, no matter how malignant.

To see how intentional this result is takes no more than looking at the amendments that were rejected.

  • Here's one that would have allowed sites to take down posts that promoted "any international or domestic terrorist group or any international or domestic terrorist acts."

That amendment was rejected.

  • Here's another that would have at least allowed sites to take down a post that "includes the denial of the Holocaust."

That amendment was rejected.

  • Here's a third that would have allowed sites to remove information that "promotes or supports vaccine misinformation."

Of course that amendment was rejected.

Seriously. Texas just passed a law (and Abbott just signed it) which prohibits social media sites from removing hate speech, or posts that promote terrorism, or intentional misinformation about vaccines, orholocaust denial.

And it doesn't stop there. Because Texas doesn't just require that sites leave these posts intact: the state also prohibits platforms from "censoring" these posts in any way. That includes "demonetize, de-boost, restrict, deny equal access or visibility to ..." That requirement means that not only do sites have to carry a post, no matter how vile, they have to promote it and pay for it equally with other posts.

So, if someone in Texas were to post a YouTube video that was full of holocaust denial, revived every antisemitic claim in history, and called for driving Jews out of the country and burning down synagogues—but didn't mention a specific time and place for people to gather with torches—YouTube would not only be forbidden from removing it, they wouldn't be allowed to add any warning, would have to promote it equally with other videos, and would have to pay the creator if it got enough racists to watch.

As the tech industry group Chamber for Progress puts it: "This law is going to put more hate speech, scams, terrorist content, and misinformation online."

Naturally, platforms and organizations have already announced lawsuits, mostly focused on the idea that the Texas law redefines social media platforms as "common carriers." It's unlikely that any of these platforms will ever be bound by this law.

Even so … it gives great insight into the type of speech Republicans are really out to promote.

Dear Time Travelers: Welcome To 2017

Dear Time Travelers: Welcome To 2017

My Lord, these time travelers.

They’re everywhere.

I first noticed this influx of visitors from the past — men, mostly — shortly after the election. Filling my email inbox. Trolling my Twitter and Facebook feeds. Offering one unsolicited directive after another about how women should be conducting themselves.

We should leave the country if we don’t like President Donald Trump — and keep our opinions to ourselves. Good luck with that one, boys.

They mock our femininity and attractiveness and openly speculate on our sex lives. And oh, how they pity the men stupid enough to marry us. Over and over, we’re back to this: “If you love your husband so much, how come you didn’t change your name?”

It’s not so surprising, really, to see why these time travelers are showing up now. They feel emboldened. The man who bragged about grabbing women by their genitals got elected anyway. If you are the kind of guy who admires that, how could you not find hope in his being elected?

So here they are, ramping up the hate mail and acting as if we’re still taking orders from them. I was raised to be polite, so I tend to welcome them to the year 2017 and explain that women can think for themselves now and speak their minds, too. As most women know, this has been true of our gender for all of time, but I keep that bit of history to myself. I figure these time travelers will eventually return to women who wish they hadn’t, and those sisters are entitled to their secrets.

Lately, I’m wondering whether time travel isn’t contagious. Spreads like a syndrome maybe.

Take North Dakota, the largest producer of spring wheat and home of “Geese in Flight,” a piece of art made from used oil-well pipes and tanks that, according to Guinness World Records, is the largest metal sculpture in the world. I mention these things because I don’t want you to think the story of North Dakota begins and ends with the conduct of two state representatives who took on the womenfolk to defend so-called blue laws requiring some businesses to open late on Sundays and others to stay shut all day long.

State Rep. Vernon Laning seconded that emotion and added, “I don’t know about you, but my wife has no problem spending everything I earn in 6 1/2 days. And I don’t think it hurts at all to have a half a day off.”

Laning later told the NBC affiliate that people who are offended by their comments need to get a sense of humor.

How many times do we have to go over this? Nothing kills a joke like having to explain it. If we aren’t laughing, you aren’t funny.

Meanwhile, in the U.S. Senate, the Republicans voted Tuesday to formally silence Democratic colleague Elizabeth Warren. She dared to impugn the character of Sen. Jeff Sessions by reading a 1986 letter from Coretta Scott King urging the Senate to reject Sessions’ nomination as a federal judge.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell explained that Warren knew darn well she was violating an arcane rule of the Senate. “She was warned,” he said. “She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted.”

Nevertheless, She Persisted.

There’s a line for your bumper sticker and favorite T-shirt right there.

Look for that best-selling title, too, coming to a bookstore near you.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and professional in residence at Kent State University’s school of journalism. To find out more about Connie Schultz (con.schultz@yahoo.com)

IMAGE: Protesters gather for the Women’s March in Oslo, Norway, January 21, 2017. The march is being held in solidarity with similar events taking place internationaly. NTB Scanpix/Stian Lysberg Solum via REUTERS

Sexism? Misogyny? That’s So Last Week

Sexism? Misogyny? That’s So Last Week

In the months leading up to the presidential election, the media coverage was full of references to the perils of running while female.

A few headlines from this fall:

PBS: “The hidden sexism that could sway the election.”

The Atlantic: “Fear of a Female Candidate.”

Fortune: “Why Sexism Is So Central to This Presidential Race.”

NBC News: “Obama Says Sexism to Blame for Close Presidential Race.”

This narrative was fueled, in large part, by all the horrible things Donald Trump has said about women.

To refresh the astonishingly short memories among us: Trump said he’d look Rosie O’Donnell in that “fat, ugly face of hers” and tell her she was fired. As Megyn Kelly reminded us, he has called women he doesn’t like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs” and “disgusting animals.” After Kelly asked Trump about this at the first Republican primary debate, he later described her as having “blood coming out of her wherever.”

About our gender, Trump has said, “You have to treat them like s—-.” Weeks before the election, The Washington Post shared a video in which Trump, at my age of 59, bragged about getting away with sexual predator behavior, advising another man to grab women by their genitals. In his final debate with Hillary Clinton, he called her “a nasty woman.”

Eventually, even stuffy news organizations were willing to describe this behavior for what it was: sexism, for the timid, and misogyny, for those tired of the tap dance. We even saw some conversations about what such rhetoric was bringing out in men who saw in Trump the permission to say out loud what they’ve thought of us all along.

Many of us women dared to think that we, as a nation and an electorate, were finally willing to name the problem and confront it.

Then Trump won enough electoral votes, if not the popular vote, to be our next president.

Poof.

Now the analysis is all about the white working-class voters who supported him. They are not the only reason he won, but they are the convenient focus now for guilt-ridden journalists who failed to listen to an entire swath of America.

The new narrative is that we — including people of color and women — must understand the anger of the white working class. It’s the economy, insist their shiny new defenders.

I do not doubt that many of these voters are, indeed, angry about what has happened to their jobs, their families and their communities. They believe that Trump cares about them, which is yet another sin he has committed against the electorate.

However, I come from the white working class. I cherish my roots, but I caution against romanticizing them. We have always had our darker side, fueled by a fear of “the other,” which often includes women.

Yes, many — but not most — women voted for Trump. Disappointing, but not shocking. Finally, perhaps, we can lay to rest the fiction that all of us women are alike.

Hillary Clinton has lost, again. Cue the collective relief in pundit-land. Sexism? Misogyny? So last week. We’re now supposed to pretend that patriotism requires that we unite behind the man who has made so clear his long disdain for us. If we dare to continue pointing this out as evidence for our distrust, we are “divisive” and “poor sports.”

The Democratic Party offers little comfort right now. All the potential names floated for the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee are male. Ditto the names, so far, of potential challengers to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

Fascinating, this unwillingness even to pretend to care how that may look to us, the message we hear. You had your chance, girls. Now step aside.

Fortunately, we have long memories, and we are not where we started this long presidential campaign.

A poem by the late Yosano Akiko, a Japanese writer and feminist, has been making the rounds. Written in 1911, it is titled “The Day the Mountains Move”:

The day the mountains move has come.

I speak, but no one believes me.

For a time the mountains have been asleep.

But long ago they all danced with fire.

It doesn’t matter if you believe this,

my friends, as long as you believe:

All the sleeping women

are now awake and moving.

We are restless, but we are still here.

Connie Schultz is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and professional in residence at Kent State University’s school of journalism. She is the author of two books, including “…and His Lovely Wife,” which chronicled the successful race of her husband, Sherrod Brown, for the U.S. Senate. To find out more about Connie Schultz (con.schultz@yahoo.com) and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at www.creators.com.

IMAGE: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts after speaking at a campaign event at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. September 19, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Telltale Signs Of A Misogynist In The Era Of Trump

Telltale Signs Of A Misogynist In The Era Of Trump

Though Donald Trump, first and foremost, ran on a promise white supremacy — just ask the 53 percent of white women who helped put him in office — there was also plenty of sexism and woman-hating in the mix. Apparently, what nearly 60 million people in this country want in a leader is a loud-and-proud racist and alleged serial sexual assaulter who brags about grabbing women by their genitalia, is totes cool with having his daughter referred to as a “piece of ass,” calls women awful names if he doesn’t want to bang them, and insults female political opponents by making cracks about their looks and figures. Um, can we start ignoring man babies and men’s rights activists whining about feminism now? After the Trump’s win, I can only hope their fragile egos are on the mend.

So let’s talk about misogyny. If we’re going to dive into the semantics of things — and why not, while we’re here — you might argue that sexists view women as unequal to men, while misogynists actually hate women. Sexism is also the term applied to the systemic oppression of women, and it’s inarguably connected to misogyny. In theory, the two exist on a continuum of discrimination and oppression. But it’s hard to stick to this kind of hard and fast thinking when the two concepts are so interconnected it’s hard to pinpoint where one crosses into the other.

You cannot grow up in a system so thoroughly ingrained with sexism—like so many other isms in our culture—without taking a bit in. That’s true for women, too. (See also: the election.) So, let’s look at how misogyny skews our thoughts.

Here’s nine examples of misogynist thinking.

1. Believing acceptable sexual behaviors for men and women differ.

Freud put a name to the Madonna-whore complex, a projection of mommy issues that separates women into “bad girls” who put out and “good girls” who don’t. Racialized misogyny—on vivid display in porn titles and categories—complicates things even further, interpreting women’s sexual behavior based on racist gender stereotypes. Overall, this kind of thinking makes women into one-dimensional objects: virtuous virgins worthy of being maritally possessed, or sluts deserving of sexual degradation. It estimates women’s worthiness and value, especially in respect to men, against their sexuality, on a scale that deducts points for enjoying sex too much. It denies the complexity of women, reducing half of the world to two impossibly simplistic archetypes. And it attempts to slut-shame women out of enjoying a basic human pleasure.

This double standard hurts men, too. According to this philosophy, manliness is linked to the number of women a man has sex with, as if men aren’t inherently men without notches in their belts. It fuels rape culture, making women into conquests devoid of wholeness.

In reality, there are no sluts, whores, good girls, or bad girls. Women are women, and no amount of slut-shaming or outdated sexual double standards can impact their intrinsic human worth.

2. Thinking feminism is anti-men.

The old adage, “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression,” is particularly apt where this argument goes. As long as women have spoken out against gender inequality, some have accused them of hating men, and of participating in a movement that seeks male destruction. Men’s rights activists (who’ve taken to calling themselves meninists and masculinists) complain that misandry—hatred of men—is feminism’s most sacred tenet. That’s a gross misunderstanding of what feminism is. Feminism isn’t anti-men; it’s anti-inequality. (Not all feminisms are equal or the same, by the way. I’m talking about feminism that is genuinely dedicated to lifting up all women.) Women are paid less than men, are disproportionately victimized by sexual violence, and even experience negative health consequences as a result of institutional sexism. Feminism seeks to right the millions of wrongs that keep women from having control over their lives and bodies. And we desperately need feminism, because patriarchy, as with all power structures, concedes nothing willingly.

3. Believing feminism oppresses men.

This argument shows more than just a misunderstanding of feminism, it reveals a complete lack of understanding of oppression. For starters, the formula for oppression is fairly straightforward: prejudice plus power. In our hierarchical, patriarchal society, men—above all, white men—occupy the highest rungs on the ladder of every social and political institution, from the family to the executive branch. Even if it were true (it isn’t) that feminazis are running around preaching hate toward men, that still wouldn’t translate into the collective social, economic and legislative power to oppress men. (Also, for the record, there is no such thing as reverse racism.) Yes, there have been strides in gender equality, and it’s true that there are women here and there in high positions, but those powerful women are few and far between, not to mention that capitalist successes are a piss-poor measure of equality. Neither feminism nor women possess the power to keep men down. If women were nearly as powerful as this idea suggests, at the very least, the Equal Rights Amendment would be law, tampons would be untaxed and probably free, and there would be mandatory paid maternity leave.

4. Thinking women made up this whole rape culture thing.

One out of every six women in America will be sexually assaulted or abused in her lifetime. Most will never tell authorities: RAINN estimates that two-thirds of rapes in the U.S. go unreported. Fears of not being believed, a justice system that rarely punishes rapists but puts accusers on trial, a culture that blames victims for drinking alcohol or certain clothing choices—all of these factors and many others dissuade women from reporting sexual abuse. Lying about rape is rare. Very. (Studies that suggest otherwise have pretty much been found to be unreliable.) But rape culture is all around, from catcalling on the street to articles that feature glowing write-ups about rapists caught in the act to a President-elect who likes to brag about grabbing women by the genitals. If you’re a man who thinks the very idea of rape culture is some trumped-up nonsense or some vague conspiracy on the part of women to garner sympathy, ask a woman you know about just one time she was subjected to unwanted touching, jokes, harassment, or sexual attention. Just one instance. Most women, unfortunately, have many more, going back to when they were girls.

5. Feeling the need to help women understand things.

Mansplaining is that thing where men helpfully explain things to women who don’t need them to be explained; it especially includes those times women know more about the subject than the man condescending to them. (Q: Where do mansplainers get their water? A: From a well, actually.) Like when a man who went to space camp one time tried to correct astronaut Jessica Meir’s science on Twitter, or when author Jessica Solnit had a man lecture her about a must-read book it turned out she’d written, or when Matt Damon interrupted and talked over “Dear White People” producer Effie Brown in a conversation about diversity (and threw a little whitesplaining in for good measure).

Solnit summed it up in a now-legendary 2008 column on the topic:

Men explain things to me, and to other women, whether or not they know what they’re talking about. Some men. Every woman knows what I mean. It’s the presumption that makes it hard, at times, for any woman in any field; that keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overconfidence.

These are facts underwritten by research studies: women are interrupted more than men; men take up 75 percent of the discussion in business meetings; men and boys are more vocal in classroom settings, while women and girls are dissuaded from speaking up; and—because the mansplaining never ends—patients interrupt female doctors more than male doctors.

If you feel the need to explain something to a woman, make sure she isn’t an expert on that thing first. Also, be sure you have an invitation to explain it. Don’t talk at length about things you don’t actually understand. And lastly, don’t attempt to mansplain away feelings. That’s never a good look.

6. Thinking bragging about sexual assault is just ‘locker-room’ talk.

It’s been said endlessly by now, but let’s be clear: if you are bragging about kissing women without their permission and grabbing women by the vagina, you are boasting about serially sexually assaulting women. Dismissing talk of this kind as anything less than advocating criminal sexual behavior denies women’s humanity, legal standing and the right to control their own bodies. Treating women like sex objects who can be touched whenever and wherever you decide isn’t boys being boys, it’s sexual predators being predatory. Locker-room talk may be off-color or crude, but when it veers into describing past or future attempts to sexually violate women, that’s rape culture showing itself, and contributes to its perpetuation. The reason this campaign season and Trump’s actual election to the presidency has triggered millions of sexual assault survivors is because they’ve recognized graphic descriptions of sexual abuse for what they are. To minimize this kind of gross and illegal behavior is to say that you’re a-okay with sexual abuse, pure and simple.

7. Believing men need to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Women aren’t just vessels for delivering babies, they’re human beings with constitutionally protected agency over their own bodies. Aside from from the fact that the anti-choice movement relies on misinformation in its mission, there remains the fact that abortion is a legal right. I know of no group of women that thinks itself so well acquainted with male anatomy as to dictate the rules on the grooming of, say, testicles. Yet male politicians can’t seem to stop advising women about what they should do with their bodies and genitalia. Men don’t need to weigh in on reproductive rights except to support them, and leave the related decision-making up to individual women.

8. Thinking women are irrational/crazy/nutty/too emotional.

Female hysteria was considered a real illness afflicting women for hundreds of years, one that could land a woman in an asylum or lead to a forced hysterectomy. Mother Jonesnotes that the list of symptoms included “fainting, anxiety, sleeplessness, irritability, nervousness and ‘a tendency to cause trouble for others’” as well as “erotic fantasy and excessive vaginal lubrication.” Here lie the roots of a perpetually modern problem of women being deemed crazy or otherwise disturbed for perfectly human behaviors. There’s an element of gaslighting in this enduring belief that women don’t have control over their emotions; that they’re crazy and out of control and therefore can’t be trusted with things like nuclear codes.

The reality is, while men’s and women’s brains do differ, gender stereotypes do little to account for how those differences manifest. A study released last year found that rationality in decision-making was pretty much the same in men and women; in fact, a separate study found men are more emotional than women, but less likely to admit to those emotions. Cordelia Fine, a University of Melbourne psychologist and author of Delusions of Gender: The Real Science Behind Sex Differences, told Vice’s Motherboard that “non-human animal research has shown us that biological sex interacts in complex ways with many different factors (hormones, stress, maternal care, and so on) to influence brain development.”

“A critically important point is that a sex difference in the brain doesn’t necessarily imply a sex difference in behaviour,” Fine adds.

Harris O’Malley, writing at the Washington Post, nails exactly what’s wrong with labeling women “crazy,” a word he dubs the “all-purpose argument ender.”

As soon as the “crazy” card is in play, women are put on the defensive. It derails the discussion from what she’s saying to how she’s saying it. We insist that someone can’t be emotional and rational at the same time, so she has to prove that she’s not being irrational. Anything she says to the contrary can just be used as evidence against her…Not only does it stigmatize people who have legitimate mental health issues, but it tells women that they don’t understand their own emotions, that their very real concerns and issues are secondary to men’s comfort. And it absolves men from having to take responsibility for how we make others feel.

What’s more, the idea that men aren’t emotional—or that emotions are anathema to masculinity—is incredibly damaging. When men aren’t allowed to express their emotions, they inevitably turn inward, leading to behaviors from substance abuse to suicide that affect and harm men in far greater numbers than women.

9. Believing that women benefit from and enjoy sexism when it takes the form of chivalry.

Not every behavior resulting from sexism is harmful on its face. When women complain about what is called chivalry (e.g., holding the door for a woman because she’s a woman, or telling a woman how nice she looks, perhaps as she performs surgery) it’s often labeled a result of political correctness run amok. But in a lengthy and insightful piece in Scientific American, Melanie Tannenbaum explains that benevolent sexism, often expressed in what appears to be flattering terms and actions, regards women as the kinder, softer, sweeter—and weaker—sex in need of protection and admiration. It can benefit women by acting as a bulwark against sexist violence. But ultimately, benevolent sexism not only treats women as unequal to men, it turns them into stereotypical fragile wisps who would possibly fall apart without the strength of men to keep them safe. Subjugation by another name remains the same.

America’s troubled history with benevolent sexism has mostly served to protect white women’s perceived fragility and preciousness in ways that have come at a tremendous cost to others. In a Washington Postpiece, sociologist Lisa Wade points out how benevolent sexism was used to justify the lynchings of black men, based on the protection of white female sexuality. Last year, in the moments before Dylann Roof shot nine African-American churchgoers, six of them black women, he told his victims, “You rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”

Tannenbaum also points to research by Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, who first identified benevolent sexism, showing those who hold benevolent sexist beliefs also harbor hostile sexist beliefs.

“In countries where the men were more likely to endorse benevolent sexism, even when controlling for hostile sexism, men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts.”

The warm, fuzzy feelings surrounding benevolent sexism come at a cost,” Tennenbaum writes, “and that cost is often actual, objective gender equality.”

IMAGE: Demonstrators hold signs outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court is due to issue its first major abortion ruling since 2007 against a backdrop of unremitting divisions among Americans on the issue and a decades-long decline in the rate at which women terminate pregnancies in Washington, U.S. June 27, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque