Alex Callinicos/SWP vs Laurie Penny/New Statesman Facebook handbags

[Tom A]

The latest from St. Laura:

Laurie Penny ‏@PennyRed 38m
Only 3% of journalists entering the industry have a working-class parent, report finds. Awful implications. http://bit.ly/12bx0WE

Like her, you mean?

 

[equationgirl]

The latest from St. Laura:


Like her, you mean?

That's not what the article even says. It says this:

According to the ‘Journalists at Work 2012′ study by the journalism body NCTJ, 65% of those who manage to break into the industry have a parent who is a professional, a manager or a director. (That’s nearly two thirds.) Just 3 percent of new journalists come from a family of ‘unskilled’ workers.

A working class worker is not the same as unskilled worker by a long shot (although it would depend on the survey definitions of unskilled and working class to be fair). Take welding, for example. It's viewed as a skilled occupation and traditionally as a blue collar job.

 

[Steel Icarus]

I'll say one thing for her. She's managed to cram 633 thread pages into a single tweet

 

[equationgirl]

I'll say one thing for her. She's managed to cram 633 thread pages into a single tweet

Impressive

 

[equationgirl]

none of those sites support what lp is claiming, but mostly reference specific and horrible incidents that no-one is denying exist.

lp claims that she gets the kind of threat lovedetective just posted, on a daily basis, presumably to her email because it doesnt happen on twitter and her blog doesnt accept comments.

another point is that the comment she speaks of wasnt a message to her, but a post on a site that slagged off celebrities run by someone trying to show how edgy and cool he was. now if she is talking about comments made about her, rather than too her, then it becomes an issue of celebrity, and yes people say very misogynist and abusive things about celebrities all the time on the net - but that is a different issue which is more wrapped up in the misogynist nature of a lot of popular culture and society at large rather than a specific and new aspect of the internet and social media. She is conflating an unpleasant downside to being famous with a social phenomena that she claims will affect any woman who writes a blog post - its the same trick hugh grant pulled essentially, and just like the dowler case, there is truth in it, but it is being distorted out of shape by her dishonesty.

it's not about making me happy

she has form for lying, she lies regularly, she's been caught out lying many times, many of us on this very thread have been the victim of her lying, so when she lies about something, regardless of what the topic is, i'm not going to apologise for pointing it out. she's a journalist for fuck's sake, she regularly lies about her life experiences and uses that to push her work and promote her brand. Most people are happy to pull her up on it in relation to her lies on other topics, and while I can understand/appreciate the sensitive nature of this, i don't see why she should get a free pass to lie about it. The truth of the matter is bad enough, there's no need to exaggerate/lie when talking about it, as it allows her (sexist, abusive) opponents to claim that she's talking a load of shite (in general) and diminish/belittle the actual real lived experience of her and others like her

i couldn't give a shit what pointing this out makes me 'look like'

I'd be grateful if you would both stop speculating about whether or not she's supposedly lying about sexual threats.

It crosses a line, and with respect, neither of you will ever know what it's like to be on the receiving end of this stuff.

 

[weepiper]

You know what? You know why she (and others) don't flag it up every single time some cunt threatens her/them/us online? Because it happens so often that it would frankly be boring. You look at it, go 'ffs', delete it and move the fuck on with your life most of the time. The really graphic ones stick in your head, like the guy on a facebook page who told me if he got his way single mums would have to work in state-run brothels to earn benefits to support our kids, and then went into enough detail to tell me he'd really thought about this, and personalised it to what he could scrape together about me off my profile page. For having the temerity to express my opinion on benefits cuts in public. But all the low-level 'die bitch' 'suck my cock' 'shut up you slut' stuff fades into background noise. That doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[equationgirl]

Like for solidarity, weepiper not for the content. And yes, it would be boring to list it every single time.

 

[Sue]

I'd be grateful if you would both stop speculating about whether or not she's supposedly lying about sexual threats.

It crosses a line, and with respect, neither of you will ever know what it's like to be on the receiving end of this stuff.

Given she's lied about lots of other things -- various of which it was easy to prove weren't true but she obviously thought she could get away with anyway -- I think it's not unreasonable to wonder what else she might be lying about. And if she hadn't told those lies in the first place, I'd not be doubting her now.

 

[Delroy Booth]

well tbh Sue your doubts are unfounded in this case, I don't doubt even for a moment she's telling the truth in this instance. Probably understated it if anything. You don't have to look too hard to find some proper virulent nasty shit about LP it's not some myth she's putting about, c'mon...

 

[emanymton]

She could well be lying but that isn't the point.

I think the suggestion is that she is exaggerating how much 'really bad' stuff she gets sent, which she quite possibly is. but as you say that is not the point. I find it quite plausible that she gets abusive messages on a daily, or almost, daily basis that are not as extreme as the example she gives in the video. But we should not be ranking abuse like that, any sexist abuse is unacceptable however 'mild' it may seem compared to the really bad stuff.

Having said that I think that the discussion around this on here as been quite sensitive and serious on the whole, and really shows how out of place her accusations of misogyny at people on here was.

Oh not really reply to you Firky just seemed a convent post to follow.

 

[Firky]

Given she's lied about lots of other things -- various of which it was easy to prove weren't true but she obviously thought she could get away with anyway -- I think it's not unreasonable to wonder what else she might be lying about. And if she hadn't told those lies in the first place, I'd not be doubting her now.

Well given you only need to look at some of the comments on youtube to see some of the shite women put up with on the internet I don't really doubt her.

Or better yet, go and google Don't Start Me Off.

 

[emanymton]

That's not what the article even says. It says this:



A working class worker is not the same as unskilled worker by a long shot (although it would depend on the survey definitions of unskilled and working class to be fair). Take welding, for example. It's viewed as a skilled occupation and traditionally as a blue collar job.

Also going from the bit you quote the report says 'a family' while she says 'a parent'. A family to be would indicate both parents, at least.

 

[Firky]

And wasn't she talking about women receiving that level of abuse everyday and not her specifically? I CBA to take a look at the video again.

But yeah, your call. Believe her not, that's not the point. Point is that women protesting about such things are dismissed without a thought.

 

[Combustible]

Given she's lied about lots of other things -- various of which it was easy to prove weren't true but she obviously thought she could get away with anyway -- I think it's not unreasonable to wonder what else she might be lying about. And if she hadn't told those lies in the first place, I'd not be doubting her now.

Is it acceptable say the same thing about rape victims who happen to have a record of dishonesty? If not shouldn't a similar principle apply in cases like this?

 

[Firky]

.

 

[equationgirl]

Also going from the bit you quote the report says 'a family' while she says 'a parent'. A family to be would indicate both parents, at least.

A single-parent family is still a family, just with one parent.

 

[Sue]

Is it acceptable say the same thing about rape victims who happen to have a record of dishonesty? If not shouldn't a similar principle apply in cases like this?

No, that's not acceptable. However, LP seems to be using this to bolster her career so that does make me dubious.

Anyway, as stated above, I don't doubt she gets harassing emails. I am questioning whether she gets such emails daily and we obviously can't prove that one way or the other. Guess I just find it interesting which things people think it's okay to question and which things it's not.

 

[Nigel Irritable]

It's okay to question things when you have some actual reason to suspect that they are untrue, rather than just because you generally disapprove of Penny. Nobody who is "questioning" her account, which, incidentally, fits with a wider pattern and can, in her case, be partially confirmed by a bit of internet searching, has provided any real reason to question it other than the general presumption that she's a wrong 'un.

 

[Firky]

However, LP seems to be using this to bolster her career

You're mad.

 

[equationgirl]

For the record, I would believe anybody who said they had been the victim of sexual threats or crimes. Victims have fought for so long to be heard and believed it is the very least I can do.

 

[sihhi]

There's zero evidence on which to base anything in this case. But the fact that sue, ld and smokedout are questioning it (incorrectly imo), does highlight the danger of previous instances of exaggeration, (the crying wolf situation).

However the fear of being tarred an exaggerator can also make people unwilling to report or flag up sexist (or for that matter racist) taunts and threats.
Everyone - journalist and non-journalist alike - has a duty to be as honest as possible in reporting sexism, but also everyone has a duty believe all reports of sexism unless there is specific reliable manifest evidence of distortion.

Hence there is nothing wrong with the talk, but the gathering itself is quite insulting - a summit of internet entrepreneurs and bloggers, in a gentrification-leading old warehouse venue in Kreuzberg where the ordinary - mostly turkish and arab women and men - are complaining of gentrification and being priced out. (Ticket sales 210 euro each, btw). The manner of this anti-sexism can be improved - not a criticism of LP.

 

[Sue]

You're mad.

You know, her talk(s) and writings on cybersexism? That career?

 

[equationgirl]

There's zero evidence on which to base anything in this case. But the fact that sue, ld and smokedout are questioning it (incorrectly imo), does highlight the danger of previous instances of exaggeration, (the crying wolf situation).

However the fear of being tarred an exaggerator can also make people unwilling to report or flag up sexist (or for that matter racist) taunts and threats.
Everyone - journalist and non-journalist alike - has a duty to be as honest as possible in reporting sexism, but also everyone has a duty believe all reports of sexism unless there is specific reliable manifest evidence of distortion.

Hence there is nothing wrong with the talk, but the gathering itself is quite insulting - a summit of internet entrepreneurs and bloggers, in a gentrification-leading old warehouse venue in Kreuzberg where the ordinary - mostly turkish and arab women and men - are complaining of gentrification and being priced out. (Ticket sales 210 euro each, btw). The manner of this anti-sexism can be improved - not a criticism of LP.

What does that 210 euro price tag actually get you, do you know? That's extortionate.

 

[smokedout]

It's okay to question things when you have some actual reason to suspect that they are untrue, rather than just because you generally disapprove of Penny. Nobody who is "questioning" her account, which, incidentally, fits with a wider pattern and can, in her case, be partially confirmed by a bit of internet searching, has provided any real reason to question it other than the general presumption that she's a wrong 'un.

actually I wasnt basing this on her being a bit of a wrong un, but the first few minutes of her talk, where she says should I tell girls the truth about speaking out online which is its horrible, its terrifying and implies that youll have to involve the police, people will follow your family round or try to blackmail you with naked photos - that this is the norm and an everyday experience along with daily threats of graphic sexual violence and murder like the shallow grave comment

I take on board a lot of what has been said in this thread, but I havent heard other women who write about this stuff, and ive read a lot of it, speak of it being this extreme - and I haven't seen examples of this on the kind of scale she implies - so I think she is giving quite a dangerous and off putting view to young women who want to start writing online if she is exaggerating in this context

I was wrong to speculate on whether she herself is telling the truth, the concern is really whether the situation is as she describes it for most women who start blogging and I dont think it is.

 

[emanymton]

A single-parent family is still a family, just with one parent.

True, what I meant was she is saying without a single parent who is working class, (whatever that means here) but if one parent was working class and one not they would not be included in the 3%

 

[sihhi]

Nick Lezard takes on the neighbourhood:

Meanwhile, down the road, I notice that a new Swanky Shop is Opening Soon. This is not the kind of news I like. Ever since the picture-framer’s shop closed simply because the landlord saw an opportunity for screwing more rent out of a tenant (with the result that the premises have remained empty for months), I have been uneasily aware that the pleasant quality of my own little pocket of London – a place in which one does not have to be a millionaire in order to feel relatively comfortable – is very much under threat. (The Islamic bookshop has also closed down, I note. I was never going to be a patron of it, for all sorts of reasons, but at least it ticked the boxes marked “diversity” and “not an estate agent”.)

Is he saying there are many parts of London where you do have to be a millionaire to be relatively comfortable? No wonder people outside think all Londoners should die. Or have I got him all wrong?

 

[Firky]

I take on board a lot of what has been said in this thread, but I havent heard other women who write about this stuff, speak of it being this extreme - and I haven't seen examples of this on the kind of scale she implies

Did you not take on board what weepiper said then?

In case you missed it:

You know what? You know why she (and others) don't flag it up every single time some cunt threatens her/them/us online? Because it happens so often that it would frankly be boring. You look at it, go 'ffs', delete it and move the fuck on with your life most of the time. The really graphic ones stick in your head, like the guy on a facebook page who told me if he got his way single mums would have to work in state-run brothels to earn benefits to support our kids, and then went into enough detail to tell me he'd really thought about this, and personalised it to what he could scrape together about me off my profile page. For having the temerity to express my opinion on benefits cuts in public. But all the low-level 'die bitch' 'suck my cock' 'shut up you slut' stuff fades into background noise. That doesn't mean it's not there.

Call me stupid, but I am more inclined to listen to weepiper's experience of being a woman than what a man's chosen to read.

 

[equationgirl]

actually I wasnt basing this on her being a bit of a wrong un, but the first few minutes of her talk, where she says should I tell girls the truth about speaking out online which is its horrible, its terrifying and implies that youll have to involve the police, people will follow your family round or try to blackmail you with naked photos - that this is the norm and an everyday experience along with daily threats of graphic sexual violence and murder like the shallow grave comment

I take on board a lot of what has been said in this thread, but I havent heard other women who write about this stuff, and ive read a lot of it, speak of it being this extreme - and I haven't seen examples of this on the kind of scale she implies - so I think she is giving quite a dangerous and off putting view to young women who want to start writing online if she is exaggerating in this context

I was wrong to speculate on whether she herself is telling the truth, the concern is really whether the situation is as she describes it for most women who start blogging and I dont think it is.

I'm sure if a woman writes about cookery, or parenting, or being a homemaker or any other traditionally female occupation she'd see very little if any.

But write about feminist issues, or politics, or football, or video games, or any other traditionally male occupation she'd see a ton.

Please stop saying 'you haven't seen examples of this on the kind of scale she implies' - just because YOU haven't seen it doesn't mean that women everywhere aren't experiencing it and aren't reporting every single instance they're called a bitch for expressing an opinion, never mind the darker stuff.

You're probably not intending to, but you're coming across as 'mansplaining'.

 

[SpineyNorman]

A working class worker is not the same as unskilled worker by a long shot (although it would depend on the survey definitions of unskilled and working class to be fair). Take welding, for example. It's viewed as a skilled occupation and traditionally as a blue collar job.

Definitely. If someone had told me and my workmates we were unskilled when I was working as a pipe fitter we'd have fed them their own teeth. To equate working class with unskilled is really fucking insulting. Practical skills are every bit as difficult to master as white collar ones (in fact having now been to university I'd say they're more difficult - my apprenticeship was much harder than my degree) and you have to really master them cos you only get one chance to do a piece of work properly - fuck it up and you're out of a job if it's a critical piece of work.

Yet more contempt from the spokesperson of the left. Fuck her.

 

[chilango]

If blokes telling women "how to do feminism" etc. can be called "mansplaining"...

...can we call privates school/Oxbridge types acting all oppressed and/or radical "poshturing"?

(See what I did there? )