101 Wankers

Posted: April 14, 2011 in Blogging, Feminism, Freedom of Speech, Uncategorized

TRIGGER WARNING: This may trigger some of you who are suffering from post-traumatic lack-of-sense-of-humour syndrome into reacting by leaving serious, holier-than-thou comments about how I am a hypocrite for drawing attention to people’s behaviour online when, gasp, I AM NOT PERFECT! I am sorry for your distress -you DONT HAVE TO READ THIS POST- and I hope you feel better soon.

101 Wankers is a blog by a woman cyclist in London, about men, or ‘wankers’ as she prefers to call them, who harass her on the streets when she is going about her business in the capital.

http://www.101wankers.com/

Obviously, cycling in big cities can be a real nightmare, mainly I thought because one risks one’s life against cars and lorries and vans and buses and… a nightmare. But the focus of 101 wankers is not so much traffic, lack of cycle awareness and dangerous driving, but rather that ubiquitous phenomenon we hear so much about (from feminists) – ‘street harassment’. I won’t go into the content of the blog here-you can read it for yourself if you must. I mention 101 Wankers because Dawn was one of the first feminists to ‘ban’ me from commenting on her blog (well it turns out it wasn’t an outright ban rather she doesn’t publish some of my comments, especially if they criticise her)  and who ‘blocked’ me on twitter. For challenging what I perceived to be quite  a misandrist, anti-men concept. Do only men harass women on the street? Do men automatically get labelled as ‘wankers’ for passing comment on a woman? Do ‘wankers’ deserve a blog to be named after them?

Anyway I thought I’d set up my own ‘101 wankers’ and see what it looks like the other way round. I am collecting the names of people who ban me from their blogs and block me from twitter. I won’t  start a whole blog in their honour, or refer to the individuals as ‘wankers’ outside the context of this little list. I don’t ACTUALLY think they are all wankers as individual people. But I think they have quite a wankerish way of dealing with dissent online. Also it is interesting what kind of categories these ‘wankers’ fall into. In terms of the kind of dissent they are attempting to block or erase.

1) High Status Feminists

These are feminists who are quite high profile in the UK and who are ‘gatekeepers’ for feminism’s castle of dogma. They run websites/blogs, write books, organise conferences, go round Tescos in their pyjamas doing the conga in order to stop objectification of women. That kind of thing.

On twitter I have been blocked by such high status feminists as:

Kat Banyard (@katbanyard) – author of The Equality Illusion. Anti-porn feminist.

Cath Redfern (@cathredfern)- co-author of ‘Reclaiming The F-word’, founder of F word UK feminist website/blog.

Julie Bindel (@bindelj) – Butch Dyke, journalist, Basher Bindel is an old-school radfem of great renown.

Bidisha (@Bidisha_online) -Bidisha, writer, journalist, wan malingerer, the queen of victim feminism. Head of ‘The Girls’ Team’

Sian Morris (@sianushka) Sian is a blogger and Bristol feminist activist who seems like an ok person, but she blocks me on twitter for challenging her views regularly.

Suzanne Moore- To be honest I have been quite hard on Suzanne. I have written some quite daming articles about her ‘Feminism 2.0′ columns in The Guardian, on my Graunwatch blog. But she has responded by suggesting I may not be ‘a woman’ after all. And by blocking me on twitter and beseeching me never to speak to ‘or about’ her ever again!

Sady Doyle is an American high-profile feminist journalist and blogger/activist. She is good at writing in CAPS to emphasise HER POINT and is particularly obsessed with rape. She blocked me on twitter when I called her a ‘bitch’, and said that is what ‘most’ women in the ‘social justice sphere’ have done.  I didn’t know I was that notorious!

Caitlin Moran blocked me on twitter when I criticised the premise of her recently published book: How to be a woman.

Sali Hughes blocked me on twitter for challenging Suzanne Moore and others about the apparent epidemic of internet ‘misogyny’ we are faced with.

Linda Grant – the novelist blocked me on twitter, I think maybe because she is pals with Suzanne Moore and witnessed an exchange of words between us.

Eva Wiseman - the Observer lesbian columnist blocked me after searching her name on twitter, and finding me critiquing her writing.

UK_Feminista – the national feminist organisation block me on twitter because I dared to argue with them about their politics.

On blogs I am banned from commenting on the blogs of

Dawn Foster- 101 Wankers – as above

Kate Smurthwaite- Blogs under the name of Cruella Blog . Kate is a ‘comedian’ and dial-a-feminist for Radio 4 and the liberal press. She famously wrote a nasty post about how she turned up at Sebastian Horsley’s funeral with a sign saying ‘what about the VICTIMS of prostitution?’ The silly cow.

Melissa McEwan- Melissa is American and runs Shakesville, a blog for frumpy fucked off feminists and queers. She has written ‘Feminism 101′ and ‘Rape Culture 101′ two of the nastiest texts about gender I know. She sometimes writes for the Guardian.

Cath Elliott- Cath is on the shortlist for the Orwell blogging prize this year. I got banned during a discussion about online bullying, for daring to suggest that feminists bully people too. There was a bit of a conflict over the context in which I’d told Cath’s pal, Julie ‘Basher’ Bindel, to ‘suck my dick’.  Cath also sometimes writes for The Guardian cif.

Feministe- I am not sure if I am banned or on a ‘time out’ from Feministe, the American based feminist blog. It was a post by my old pal Clarisse Thorn (see below) where I mentioned that if I said what I really felt about her ideas on ‘rape culture’ I’d probably get banned/blocked/insulted. And I did.

Amanda Marcotte – another young American feminasty, who obviously doesn’t like my take on her precious dogma. She blocks me on twitter.

Comment Is Free ( @commentisfree) On twitter the Guardian’s online section blocked me after I mentioned the ‘shit feminism’ of the Graun. Stay classy.

Bella Mackie (@bellamackie) blocks me on twitter. She is an editor at cif and runs the @commentisfree twitter with two others. So it was her!

Susie Bright (@susiebright) It is not often I have been surprised to be blocked by someone online. But Susie Bright surprised me. She left a positive comment on my (critical) review of her book Best Sex Writing 2012 and we had an interesting interaction. But now she blocks me on twitter. Thanks sister!

Other Feminist women

There seems to be a load of feminists who all know each other who all find QRG’s special blend of gender politics/sexuality/dissent unpalatable. Again I won’t name them as they don’t represent a particular publication/group. They do wield some influence though and quite a few of them are bloggers. They are contributing to my list of 101 wankers anyway!

A few are becoming more prominent, or annoyed me a lot, so deserve a mention:

Stavvers  Zoe Stavaris writes a blog called ‘another angry woman’. Not another one? She uses a mix of feminism 2.0 and evolutionary biology and psychology to show how men are bad and women are the best. I am blocked from her blog sometimes, especially when I criticise her work. I accused her of shutting down debate on her own blog, and she said shutting down debate is often allowing debate to happen. How?

Alison Afra Alison got to know the work of Mark Simpson via me. She wrote a blogpost about his recent Guardian article, then refused to publish my comments underneath it. She also blocks me on twitter.

Linda Marric (linda_marric) feminist, socialist, Johann Hari fan. Likes Mark Simpson even though she is against everything he stands for and vice versa

Rachel Roberts (@scouserachel) no idea except I think it has something to do with Sali Hughes why she blocks me.

Sharon Gooner (@sharonGOOner) blocks me because I challenged her for wishing someone dead on twitter.

Sarah Ditum – the original Mumsy Cupcake Feminist. Called me ‘menacing’. Grr.

@Langtry_girl – blocked me on sarah ditum’s suggestion. how loyal.

Male Feminists:

Dorian Lynskey blocked me for publishing a tweet of his which said people who use the term ‘misandry’ are just ‘self-pitying cocks’.

No, Seriously, What About The Menz? a blog supposedly concerned with men’s issues, banned me for criticising Sady Doyle, that well known men’s rights activist I mean nasty feminist.

2) Gayists

The Gayists don’t like me. And I don’t like them. These are middle class, white, ‘privileged’ gay men who like to go on and on and on about how oppressed they are, and how any challenge to their dogma is ‘homophobia’. The key gayists that block me on twitter are:

Patrick Strudwick- Strudders is a journalist. He posed as a gay who wishes he were straight to dupe a Christian therapist into trying to ‘cure’ him. He flirts with women a lot, like Caitlin Moran and goes on about his amazing feminist Mum.

Johann Hari-St Johann the Librarian is a lay gay preacher I mean journalist. He thinks Christianity is the work of the devil, and everyone must atone for their sins by idolising Stephen Fry and becoming more pious than er… Patrick Strudwick. Johann also has a blog where he doesn’t allow anyone to leave comments. So it is more of a pulpit.

Fuck Theory - Mr Fuck Theory isn’t on twitter. He runs a blog about sexuality and philosophy. He is very gayist without actually going on about the politics all the time. It just seeps out of his every pore. I imagine his appartment is spotless. I imagine his life is perfect. I imagine that deep down, he hates who he is, so he hides it by hating everyone else instead.

Str8Bro – Str8bro is a gay who thinks he is a bro. He blocks my comments on his blog but I think he loves me really, don’t you bro?

Eric Anderson – accused me of being a sock puppet. Thinks he is the queen of masculinity studies.

Mark McCormack – is Eric (Gayric) Anderson’s chief honcho.

Stuart Sandford – is an artist and bodybuilder. He is doing a project where he is bodybuilding for a year or something. It is well gay.

Nero – (@Nero) an ex Telegraph columnist, uber gay, doesn’t like Hari. Or me.

Owen Jones – (@owenjones84) author of Chavs, critiquing dehumanising portrayals of working class people, calls people ‘brain dead trolls’. I pointed out the irony. He blocked me.

Alex (@Sturdyalex) – a good political blogger. But we came to blows over  gay marriage, and he said my tweets were a ‘pollutant’ in his timeline and I am in serious need of help. Not from him I hope!

Max Morris – friends with Eric Anderson and Mark Mccormack

Grant Peterson – husband of Eric Anderson

Matt Ripley – not actually gay, but friends with McCormack and Anderson.

Martin Sterling (@streetworker01) Writes for Corrie. Blocked me under instructions from Paul Burston. What power he yields!

Quentin Nield @quentinnield – another one who blocked me under instructions from Paul Burston.

Ian Rivers (Ian_Rivers) – colleague of Mccormack and Anderson. Need I say more? Blocks me on twitter.

Stella Duffy is lesbian but I think it is gayism (and Paul Burston) that caused her to block me on twitter.

Yozzer Hughes  @yozzerhughes66 – I have never interacted with him except once after he commented about me on twitter. Then I noticed he blocks me. Gay.

Egg Of Truth ( @eggoftruth ) thinks I should be illegal as I am such a vile homophobe!

The Cowlicker (@thecowlicker ) nice body, shame about the gayism.

Ben Summerskill (@bensummerskill ) head of Stonewall the gay rights campaign organisation. Gay.

3) Sex People

I write about sex/sexuality. So do plenty of others. But it seems I get up some of their noses. Because I do sex wrong, it seems. The people who think I do sex wrong and so block me on twitter are:

Brooke Magnanti (aka @BelledeJour_uk) – Brooke/Belle is one of the most successful sex bloggers of our time, and has had her blog turned into very  popular books. She now blogs about sex/sex work and ‘feminism’ for a forthcoming book called ‘Sexonomics’. She is a bit like the queen bee of the sex writing world. I have felt the sting in her tail. Brooke also has a blog for her ‘sexonomics’ writing where she does not allow comments. It’s a lecture not a conversation.

Zoe Margolis (@girlonetrack) – Zoe is not quite but on the way to being as successful as Belle, as a sex blogger who has had her work published as two books, and is apparently having a film made based on the blogs/books too. She is another queen bee and there’s not enough room in the blogging world of sexy sex show-offs for two of those it seems. She doesn’t blog at the moment.

Filament Magazine (@filamentmag) – is a UK-based magazine, with international distribution, for women who like to look at men. But only certain women, and only in a certain way. The ‘female gaze’ is rather stern and it doesn’t like to be criticised. I’m also blocked from commenting on their live journal blogs.

Clarisse Thorn (@clarissethorn) Clarisse Thorn is an S and M ‘sex positive’ feminist. But she wasn’t very positive when I challenged some of her representations of masculinity on her blog and on a feminist website. She told me to ‘tone down’ my ‘anti-feminism’ or leave so I left. (She hasn’t blocked me on twitter yet, though, yet).

Kitty Stryker Kitty Stryker is a kinky sex person from Sanfrancisco, sex city. She put me ‘on mod’ on her blog, which is like being on the naughty step, and my actually block me altogether now. She got her kinky knickers in a twist when I challenged her project aiming to bring more men into the field of the ‘female gaze’. Which I don’t think exists. She is friends with Filament mag and others.

Freedom In  A Puritan Age Journal – the prosex, anti-censorship journal refuse to publish my comments on their blog, and the editor called me a ‘troll’ and says she does not want to have anything to do with me. After Id written a review for her website, unpaid. Nice!

Anna Arrowsmith – for a pornographer she is frightfully delicate and stuck up.

Dr Petra – we used to get on ok but she can’t take criticism – e.g. she does not allow comments on her blog. and it was ‘with regret’ she had to block me.

Belinda Brooks-Gordon @BelindaBG – psychologist and sex researcher, pals with dr Petra. Didn’t like it when I suggested her ‘big gay study’ was too…gay.

4) The New Statesman

I swear to you I have never ever had a problem with the New Statesman. I mean like most people I stopped reading it ages ago. But when it came online I kept abreast of the blogs by some of its journalists I knew from elsewhere. One by one I got into what turned out to be quite heated debates with a few of them, that ended up in a car crash of a dispute that shall now be ever known as ‘dozy shitgate’. The key NS journos who have decided I represent a threat to whatever it is they are trying to do are:

Laurie Penny (@Pennyred) Ah, Laurie. I actually have a bit of a soft spot for laurie. She is a kind of parody of a parody of Rik Mayall’s paradoy of a student  lefty activist in the Young Ones. She writes incredibly turgid but sometimes hilarious prose, and always mentions ‘sadism’ and ‘submission’ and other dramatic words.

Steven Baxter (@stevenbaxter) I don’t have anything to say about Baxter. He runs the Enemies of Reason blog. It’s aptly named.

David Allen Green (@davidallengreeen) Likewise DAG. He’s a lawyer. And an ex-Tory now Liberal Democrat.

5)Trans Activists

Transgender politics are bound to be fraught in some ways. I didn’t realise just how fraught till I started discussing them online. MOst trans people I have conversed with have been very open and interesting to talk to. One or two have not. And those one or two seem to wield quite a lot of power in the community.

Metal Mujer (@metalmujer aka nueva voz) MM has a respect I just do not understand, not just from trans women, who she claims to represent, but also from other activists. They allow her to ‘call them out’ when they are ‘transmisogynist’. I didn’t and I got told I was a ‘cis princess’ and I had to be removed from her sight.

Roz Kaveney a trans woman activist/feminist, blocked me on twitter because she likes Suzanne Moore I think, and got annoyed with my critiques of her friend.

Big Daddy Keltik – trans man, feminist, Scot, annoying.

Aunty sarah @auntysarah a trans woman I don’t know why she blocked me on twitter.

6) skeptics

Giagia – Brian Cox’s wife, blocks me on twitter, probably because I disagreed with here about something. That’s the skeptic movement for you always opened to opposing points of view.

Tracy King @tkingdoll blocked me after a very brief ‘discussion’ on twitter about something – to do with feminism. May have been the skepchick in a lift thing I can’t remember.

7) Funny People

I thought funny people were quite open minded and hard to offend it seems not. So far, on twitter I have been blocked by

Grace Dent the guardian critic and general funny woman, for standing up against her bullying of some people who challenged a ‘joke’ she made about gypsies.

Simon Blackwell, comedy writer including of The Thick of it. For… I have no idea.

Ava Vidal – comedian. Apparently.

8 ) Catholics

AlphabetofBeing – A Catholic blogger and tweeter who blocked me. I have no idea why! What do I do to offend Catholics? ….

9) The Ritas

Possibly the most surreal sub-category of people who block me online, The Ritas are a two-woman band, one of whom (@Helen_Highwater_) is a longtime Moz fansite /slashfic writer. I suppose it could be my anti-feminism that pissed them off – who knows? anyway they are on the list (@Oliveoyl is the other one)

Update – I found out the Ritas – or Helenhighwater at least, block me because I said the slutwalks were ‘manshaming’. As I thought – feminists can’t handle critique.

And now, Helen’s boyfriend- @eighths on twitter, has blocked me after I responded to his comment here (as ‘asif’) and on twitter that I should ‘please die’ of ‘cancer of the spine’. What lovely people!

10) Other ‘LGBT politics’ blockers

@CampbellX who is also a lesbian and a feminist.

@Cobaltmale who is also a gay

@Marycigarettes who is also a gay.

Marilyn, the 80s homo/drag icon friend of Boy George @TheMrmarilyn on twitter. Ruin my teen heroes why don’t you? when Marilyn found out he was on 101 wankers he said, ‘I hope I am at number one’! always a popstar and one of my stars!

@Stephenplynch – White, Gay, etc etc…

@LukestephensMUA – see above

@Jonesyinc1 – see above

 

11) Others

@Frozenwarning – no idea why

@rhysmorgan – because I argued with him and Tracy King (@tkingdoll)

@Msnickyclark – disability activist, liberal darling

@mattleys – I think I pissed him off when I argued with his liberal pals after being outed. He blocks me on twitter now.

Alex Marwood – @alexmarwood1 friend of Paul Burston. ’nuff said.

Zoot Cadillac (@zootcadillac ) – dunno. Blocks me on twitter.

Citizenx103 @citizenx103 – is the boyfriend of someone I know via twitter, a lovely woman. But he got bored of QRG and wanted me to have a day off! I refused.

Mat of Kilburnia @matofkilburnia blocks me on twitter. I have no idea why!

That’s it for now. I wonder if I will get to 101 wankers before Dawn does!

Comments
  1. McDuff says:

    Do only men harass women on the street?

    See this? This, here, is “whataboutery”. The answer is “probably not, so what?”

    The Daily Bunny blog only features bunnies. Other animals are Daily too! Oh no, what about them?

    It’s only “misandry” if all men harass women on the street. Since they don’t, it’s “miswankery”, and I’m OK with that I’ll be honest.

    • have you read the blog 101 wankers, mcduff?

      I think you will find it makes men into stereotypes and is misandrist in how it perpetuates a view of ‘generic’ ‘wanker’ men (sexually)harassing women.

      It’s not only misandry if all men harass women. Misandry is the perpetuating of negative stereotypes that show a disregard, a hatred of men.

      • McDuff says:

        I have read it. Mostly it complains about people behaving badly. I’m sure that if those people were women it would be noted. Or maybe not. Maybe she’s a terrible man-hating whore. But, in my experience, gender roles being what they are, the kind of people who shout at other people on the street tend not to be female. You’d expect a certain gender bias in the samples on account of how women by-and-large don’t shout “you’re a cunt” at other women in public.

        But then, a lot of the wankers in question are also called out for, um, bad driving. One of the things you said you’d expect to be a problem. And if they happen to be men, well, this is anecdotes at play. Nobody is making these people be bad drivers or rude bastards. It’s just how things play. If they happen to all be men, well, as a man I’d invite them all to stop being cunts.

        I’ve been out to dinner with actual penny-pinching hasidic Jews. Sometimes people behave in ways which are entirely consistent with stereotypes. Unfortunate, and yet true.

        • yes Mcduff and you are behaving to type as usual.

          I may as well not have bothered with my Trigger Warning the humour was lost on you. Did you swallow a lemon or something?

          • McDuff says:

            Ah yes OK. If you say something inaccurate and I call you out on it I’m “missing the joke.” God, wish I had a fucking nickel for every time someone claimed that one.

            A good comedian never blames their audience.

        • typhonblue says:

          So I have your full support to create a blog called:

          ‘101 negroids’

          Which will chronicle all the black people in my life who’ve done something nasty to me.

          It’s totally harmless, and definitely won’t perpetuate negative stereotypes about black criminality and violence, after all it’s about _actual black people who’ve actually done mean things_.

          • This. This. This. This.

            Oh wait, didn’t you get the memo? It’s only OK to do this to white men. Yeah, because you see, they’re PRIVILEGED.

            Why is it only ok to do to white men? Because some feminist said so. I don’t remember which one … OH WAIT, her name was ALL OF THEM.

            I have done plenty of looking and I am yet to see why “privilege” only applies to white men. And why not RICH white men? Why not RICH white men with COLLEGE DEGREES? Why not RICH WHITE MEN WITH MASTERS DEGREES AND A MILITARY RECORD?

          • McDuff says:

            See, I’d invite you to show me the bit on the blog where she says “I’m only going to call out men on this” or “this shows what wankers men are (and by extension, how all women are full of innocence, sweetness and light).” It might exist; I might just have missed it. But if it’s not there, it renders your point somewhat pointless.

            Incidentally, there are “look at this thing this crazy nigger did!” style blogs out there. Some of them even run by black people. The world is a complicated place.

            As far as privilege goes, yes it applies to people other than men, and yes some men have it more than others. But the existence of “rich white male upper class privilege” does not preclude the more general existence of “male privilege”, just as it also does not preclude the existence of “white privilege” which applies to women just as handily as to men.

            And one of the ways in which privilege manifests itself is in demands for unequal treatment masquerading as justice, because inequality has been the norm and adjusting it feels like maltreatment. Thus, to call a man a wanker when he was only having a bit of harmless fun calling a woman a slag is totes Misandry fo sho, apparently, and totally the same as establishing a link between criminality and the “negroid” genetic type. Because white people have a history of being arrested because of the colour of their skin just like black people, and men live in total fear of shouting abuse at women in the street because the police are just waiting to swoop in with their “calling a woman a slut” detectors and cram you into the ever-overflowing prisons. Oh no wait actually the opposite of those thing is true, isn’t it?

  2. Clare says:

    No distress on reading this (sorry to disappoint). It’s actually quite witty and well-written. I do, however, still think you’re a hypocrite.

  3. Deep breaths everyone. I am sure you will get over it. But I did leave a trigger warning!

  4. Clare says:

    Aw. I almost want to act upset so you don’t feel sad about not having the impact you so clearly need. Don’t worry. I’ll see if I can find a nice feeble feminist to come over here and cry so you can feel like a big heavyweight and show off about how totally amazing you are compared to those fools who are so afraid of you that they want to put a stop to you and shut you down (or whatever delusion it is you’re harbouring here).

  5. Clare says:

    Sorry, you’re stuck with me for now because nobody of any importance actually gives a shit.

  6. Clare says:

    Sure. But in these parts, I’m just an interested passer-by so I’m not surprised it pisses you off to have me niggling you. Where are all those big important people you need to swoop in to flame and insult you?

  7. Clare says:

    Oh, hang on. I suppose the fantasy is that they’re all hiding away in their houses waiting for the nasty lady to go away.

  8. Clare says:

    Ha. Nice try but I think we both know that’s your dream not mine.

  9. Amazing, I really thought the list would be longer by now ;-) not that it should be but so many people seem to have lost their sense of humor.

  10. elflojo84 says:

    I’m not one to side with the fems against you QRG, but I have to say I don’t think 101 wnakers is misandrist, and I have flicked through it if not studied it in detail. As far as I recall, all the incidents as reported I considered the author had a legitimate grievance against that individual, and no implication that all men were like that. There is an issue of fems claiming this type harrassment is ‘widespread’ or ‘an epidemic’ because it happens, say, twice a week (still too much, but still, think of all the men who totally ignore through those two weeks and do some maths…), but again, I don’t recall the author doing that. So I’m going to have to disagree with your assessment of it.

    But I’ll do it without sniggering about your submissiveness like a 14-year-old pretending not to be a virgin, if that helps at all?

    (Good call on Bindel though. Horrible fucking human being, absolutely dispicable piece of shit cunt. I hope that has made my opinions on this worthless sack of piss and semen clear.)

  11. Clare says:

    That’s it though. There’s actually probably only a very small number of people who don’t want to ever engage with QRG and an even smaller one who actually want to silence her. It’s a shame for her really.

    • why should any one want to silence anyone Clare? That is my point. One wanker is one too many in my view. And actually I have already counted more wankers than Dawn 101 wankers Foster. But as you can see the cleverness of the title suggests there are LOADS of wankers harassing Dawn even though she is nowhere near the 101 mark. I don’t think she has got to even 20.

      Also I have missed some names off here as I don’t want to be targeting individuals who are not in powerful positions as I think it is mean.

      • McDuff says:

        Blocking someone on Twitter is not “silencing” them. You’re free to say whatever you like, still. What it is, is “not listening to you.” And that’s the flipside of freedom of speech. If the swine don’t want to gobble down your pearls then that’s their loss, I’m sure, but there’s nothing censorious about it.

    • elflojo84 says:

      As a proportion though, in context, I’d say pretty high. Of the category “feminists who QRG argues with online”, it seems like a high percentage don’t want to ever engage with QRG. Almost certainly a higher percentage than those of the category “men I encounter cycling round London” who harrass the author of 101 wankers.

      Anyway, my point is both blogs are attacking those particular wankers, not any particular group they belong to. I think QRG is reading too much into it, as I said previously.

  12. Clare says:

    I haven’t looked at Dawn’s site yet but I think the 101 might be a reference to those lists that state the basics like “Trans 101″ or “Feminism 101″ rather than the number of “wankers” listed.

    • redpesto says:

      Nope: ‘Wankers 101′ is entry-level masturbation. ‘101 Wankers’ is a quantity, like dalmatians, but apparently not as cute.

      • Dildo bugger says:

        I know it’s over a year since you posted this comment, but I could resist asking “what? Can’t wankers be cute?”

  13. From the last post on Dawn’s Blog:

    ‘But when cycling back from work today, I encountered two upstanding specimens of human life who definitely weren’t trying to be courteous or poetic. The first spotted me at a traffic light. He started to cross in front of me in a cloud of cheap cider, then paused, glowered at me and asked “Are you a DYKE or a SLAG?” I raised an eyebrow and asked “Are those my only options?” which seemed to confuse him utterly. The car behind me, presumably unamused that a walking Madonna-whore Complex had transposed itself to a Charlton A-road at rush hour, started hitting his horn, which snapped my assailant from his Freudian fug. “What? SHUT UP!” he barked as he ran across the road.’

    calling someone ‘a madonna whore complex’ and an ‘upstanding specimen of human life’ and making out he is stupid, and in a ‘cloud of cheap cider’ is turning an individual ‘wanker’ into a stereotype of a man. It is misandry in action. it is just subtle.

    • elflojo84 says:

      None of those insulting phrases you pick out even hint at referring to all men. None of them is even gender specific. You’re just interpretting individual insults, because they’re directed at a man by a woman, as being aimed at all men, just like the twatty feminists do in reverse on CiF. It’s offensive from them, and it’s offensive from you.

      • I disagree elflojo I think they are gendered in terms of how we perceive men in society. especially ‘loser’ men as she likes to present these ‘wankers’ as.

        But I will indulge your believe that I am being offensive and ‘twatty’ if thats what you want to call me! Call me a wanker if you like I really don’t care Ive been called a lot worse this week.

        • elflojo84 says:

          Considering a man a ‘loser’ because he has a badly-paid job or whatever is wrong and damaging to society. Calling him one because he pulls up next to a girl at traffic lights and asks her if she’s a dyke or a slut is just common sense. You’re trying to conflate the two, but you aren’t showing me the link, I really am not getting it.

          Even though I’m wearing my stockings and suspenders, getting into a feminine mindset and am thus more able to comprehend your girly emotional irrational whitterings :p

          • I dont agree elflojo but I don’t call men ‘wankers’ or ‘losers’ in print to other people and make it into a funny blog that includes a map of the world with ‘worldwide wankers’ written on it.

            I like men. I have called a man a wanker to his face when he was attacking me physically but that is different.

          • elflojo84 says:

            Seeing as we’ve run out of comment branches now seems like a good time to agree to disagree. Sorry about the ‘twatty’ (I didn’t really mean to aim it at you, but actually I did didn’t I…), I promise to spare you a thought when I’m balls deep in some Dutch girl still wearing my suspenders. Night

  14. Having looked through 101 Wankers, I think you are being a bit unfair to Dawn Foster. The people she calls out in her posts could easily be described using much worse terms than she uses.

    So unless she is leaving out road incidents initiated by female drivers, how is she being unfair to males?
    .

    • she is only talking about men. and not just drivers it is really a post about ‘street harassment’ of women by men. and that is all contained in a ‘misandrist’ discourse I believe. calling men ‘wankers’ as a group, which she does with the whole concept, is a way of putting them down and dehumanising them.

      I get hassle on the street but I don’t think the men who do it are wankers.

      also why did she refuse to publish my comments on her blog? If she can stand up to my critique?

      • You and I have both spoken out very clearly against the practice of stifling commentary (and look at the censorship it has elicited). So, that point I agree with.

        Since I live in an area that has been called one of the worst for bike riding in the US and am rapidly approaching the point of being decrepit, I gave up bike riding years ago. But my experience with bad drivers when I am out in my undersized two seater suggests an equal number of male and female twits on the road. I was just giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming that she would call out any close encounters with bad female drivers and also refer to them as “wankers” ;-) .

      • elflojo84 says:

        She isn’t calling men wankers as a group, she’s calling men who harrass her in the street wankers as a group which is fair enough. And ‘part of a misandrist discourse’ is no more a concrete concept, or any more applicable to one individual insulting another than ‘rape culture’. I’m still not buying it, it seems like you dislike her for other reasons (which may be justified, I have no idea) and are extending all of that onto this blog. She may be misandrist as you say, but 101 wankers isn’t evidence of that

  15. elflojo84 says:

    Oh, and totally off topic but you’re going to love this – I’m off on a macho manly rugby tour to Amsterdam tomorrow, with manly physical sport, booze, macho off-colour humour, probably whores (not for me) probably casual sex with girls picked up in bars (hopefully for me) … all of this while being compelled by ‘Tour Rules’ to wear ladies’ underwear.

    Sexual ambiguity, subverting gender roles, ‘faggishness’, total submissiveness (to the rulemakers’ whims), there’s even some sporno in there! (If varying degrees of chubbiness sweating booze and squeezed into a too-tight rugby shirt counts as sporno). It ticks all the QRG boxes. I’m trying on my stockings and suspenders right now, they feel … itchy

  16. Sarah AB says:

    QRG – not particularly on topic – but I’m still trying to work out if your non-feminism is particularly different from my (possibly rather half hearted) feminism …

    • It may not be in itself I don’t know. Nice to see you again btw!

      But I think my ‘passion’ against feminism has stemmed from trying to engage with feminists and express my critiques of some feminist dogma. And then the reaction I have had has been so aggressive and dismissive that it has led me to really go against the whole thing. Which I now think I do with full intellectual reasoning, not just out of annoyance with the feminists! If something can’t cope with critique it is not worth having, in my opinion.

  17. Basically I think ‘misandry’ is not understood in our culture because we are told it doesn’t exist especially by liberals/feminists. we are taught how to spot misogyny all the time but don’t recognise misandry when it is there.

    I will write more on this be warned!

    • McDuff says:

      Who’s this “we”, paleface?

        • McDuff says:

          Strange, I’d not say I’d noticed a particularly vibrant “how to spot misogyny” scene happening anywhere outside a particular liberalosphere subsection of the internet. Did culture suddenly transform itself into something completely different while I was making that film last week or what? I did drop out of the news cycle for four days. Did we suddenly stop paying people lots of money to write columns reminding us that everything up to and sometimes including physical violence is “just a bit of harmless fun”? I’ll have to go down the pub to check this out – did the generations of gender essentialists vanish overnight, or did they just get forcibly re-educated, perhaps with some kind of mind bullets?

          • have you never read The Guardian?

          • McDuff says:

            I click onto the Guardian website infrequently, when linked.

            As to whether the Guardian op-ed page really represents the driving force of British culture in the modern era, let’s consult some numbers, shall we?

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2011/mar/11/abcs-newspapers

            No… no that looks like they get 2.7% of the National Daily newspaper market, slightly more than 10% of the Mail’s market share. The Sun, Star, Mail and Express share 62% between them. I suppose we could add in the Independent… oh dear, still less than 5% of the total market.

            Not seeing The Guardian as being particularly culturally representative, based off those numbers, I’ll be honest. I think I’ll stick with the null hypothesis for now, but perhaps you have some more evidence about the massive penetration of Guardian-esque ideas into the UK zeitgeist. I’m actually pretty curious about this proposed mechanism by which it affects “everyone” even though only 3% of people who buy newspapers ever buy the damn thing, let alone read it, while the Sun/Mail/Star/Express remain curiously culturally inert, having no effect or influence on “everyone” despite their far superior readership.

  18. ITS NOT A JOKE BUT HUMOUR IS STILL ALLOWED IN OUR EXPRESSION!

  19. also mcduff you aren’t ‘calling me out’ on something you are disagreeing with my analysis of something. And I am disagreeing with you.

    • McDuff says:

      Potato Pohtahto. “You don’t get the joke” is a lame defense of anything and you know it. When you’re using the same get out of jail card as Jim Davidson it’s a bad sign.

      If it was a joke it wasn’t very funny. If it was a serious point it wasn’t very well thought out. Either way, I’m easy with it.

  20. sofia says:

    i think it’s hilarious that list even exists. the only two sites i’ve been banned from so far is feminist philosophers (censorship of the worst kind) and feministe.

  21. hehe,

    Looks like I’m banned from Hugo Skeezer’s site….

    When I try to post it just says server error…maybe it really is a server error… but the funny thing is he brags about his dirty past, then loves to talk down to other men….

    I guess I’m now an MRA ;)

    Oh, and if that’s the case I’ll also have to rally against the social conservatives since I see sooooo much misandry from their side of the fence……

  22. Sarah AB says:

    I expect if I hung out at the blogs QRG got banned from I might start to identify as anti-feminist – as it I support I think of myself as both feminist and anti-extreme-feminist – rather as I identify as left wing, but can’t stand (most bits of) the far left. I think there are ways in which discourse/society can work against men – it’s a pity that most of the people pointing this out do rather intemperately – often men who feel they’ve had a raw deal somewhere along the line. And some people seem programmed to refuse to compute certain kinds of arguments which could be perceived (yet aren’t really) anti-feminist. For example, in a discussion about coercion and rape once there was a debate about whether a particular situation (a man pretending to be his twin brother in order to sleep with his wife or something) counted as rape. I said that, if it did, surely it would also be rape if a women pretended to be her twin sister for the same purpose. Someone said that was the most bizarre suggestion he had ever read. Which seemed a bit of an extreme response!

  23. Sarah AB says:

    Sorry about various typos – haven’t yet my coffee yet. And just to add – I thought it could be seen as antifeminist to imply that a woman coerced into sex was more to be pitied than a man coerced into sex. Sorry this isn’t very relevant – but it was an argument which irked me, and seemed in QRG territory.

  24. JustAPunter says:

    I enjoy your writing QRG. And thanks for Graunwatch.

    But…

    Why is it bad that Brooke Magnanti doesn’t allow comments on her blog? She’s explained her reasons for that. If she wants a platform for her views then that’s her business.

  25. Todd says:

    Oh Quiet Riot Girl. You mock feminists for loving gender more than anyone (which they probably do) and ask where they would be without it but where would YOU be without feminism?

    I bet anyone who’s anyone will be clamouring to get into this list if they haven’t already so it looks like your lazy dream of there being no feminists left who you can troll and being able to blame THEM for your loss may eventually come true! More fool them but be careful what you wish for because it’s you who’ll be twiddling your thumbs with no mischief to make while they all carry on in their “castle of dogma” without you.

  26. Zee says:

    Hi QRG, Apologies for offtopic nature and for flagging up something functional in my first post but I think there is something up with your blog today because the comments suddenly appear in the wrong order. This is a problem ’cause it makes parts of the conversation impossible to follow properly!

    When I looked yesterday, the starting order was this

    1> Mcduff (April 14, 2011 at 4:01pm)
    2> QRG (April 14, 2011 at 4:31pm)
    3> Conversation between Clare and QRG (April 14, 2011 4:18 – 5.01pm)
    4> Is Still Here (April 14, 2011 at 5.03pm)
    5> elflojo84 (April 14, 2011 at 5.05pm)
    and so on

    But now it’s

    1> Mcduff (April 14, 2011 at 4:01pm)
    2> QRG (April 14, 2011 at 4:31pm)
    3> McDuff (April 14, 2011 at 9.25pm)
    4> QRG (April 14, 2011 at 9.27pm)
    5> McDuff (April 14, 2011 at 9.32pm)

    The sequence continues right down the thread until April 15 @9.14am before being interupted by the earlier conversation with Clare. This sequence appears to be continuous until April 14 @8.11pm but then a comment from Still Here on April 14 at at 5.38pm suddenly appears! I won’t go through the whole lot but suffice to say the patterns continue. Can you put this right? I found the thread interesting at first but it got too frustrating to follow!

    I don’t believe the prob has anything to do with comments coming out later after being in the mod queue because I’ve been reading your blog for ages and all the commenters above have been approved before.

  27. Zee says:

    3 and 2 in the first list should be reversed and the times reflect this.

  28. Zee says:

    Thankyou for that :-)

    (That last comment was about my own mistake in the first list by the way.)

  29. Sara says:

    That Mary Whitehouse pic seems an awful lot like wishful thinking to me. It’s like you’re trying to discredit your opponents by making them look as unappealing and comical as possible.

  30. Sara says:

    What’s wrong with not having comments? No-one is obliged to debate with anyone and high profile people tend to be busy, yes?

    Was the point of this post to put out a warning to any known writer/blogger who doesn’t stand to attention at your command? “Engage with QRG or you’re on the shitlist”?

    It’s as good a way as any to try to get famous I suppose.

    • dennis mccann says:

      What’s wrong with not having comments? No-one is obliged to debate with anyone and high profile people tend to be busy, yes?

      well that’s ok then, us low profile people will just have to talk amongst ourselves. high profile people don’t have the time because they spend so much time up themselves with their adoring masses fawning at the arrival of each and every utterance. debate and criticism diminishes their power…..so they don’t allow it

  31. Sara says:

    ‘Doesn’t seem so much fun when the boot is on the other foot does it?’

    I don’t what this relates to. Can you explain? When did anyone try to make you look like Mary Whitehouse?

    • It’s not always all about me Sara. I was making a wider point about how feminists often cariacature their opponents, or their perceived opponents, especially men.

      eg Privilege Denying Dude, 101 Wankers, ‘whatabouttehmenz’…

  32. Todd says:

    My comment got ignored. I can’t believe you didn’t drop everything and indulge me immediately QRG! You must be afraid of debate just like all those people in your list.

    Looks like I’ll have to add you to my own list of meanies who won’t give me the attention I so clearly deserve ;-)

    • thats the thing, Todd. To really disempower me they might have considered ignoring me. As it is they block and ‘ban’ and ‘delete’ me, showing me just how much I have got under their skin.

      • McDuff says:

        That *is* ignoring you. It’s the equivalent of throwing the boor out of the party. Ejecting the outcast can sometimes be snobbery, but it might also be the point where everyone breathes a sigh of relief because Drunk Aunt Gertrude is no longer cackling in a gin-soaked fug over in the corner and telling everyone within earshot why they’ll never amount to anything in life.

        But regardless, being blocked on Twitter *is being ignored*. It’s not being silenced. Look. I’ll prove it. Read that post up there on your blog. Does it exist? If it does, you haven’t been silenced.

    • Henry says:

      Todd,

      Anyone reading the Safe Spaces post (http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/safe-spaces-silencing-sisterhood) can easily see how much time QRG has spent answering your tediously repetitive accusations of hypocrisy, which you dole out fairly regularly, and without much variation on the theme

      cheers :)

  33. jim jepps says:

    Hi there, sorry to hear you keep getting banned from places.

    I do want to say I think you are wrong about Dawn Foster’s 101 Wankers. It’s a blog that follows true events in her life and, knowing her a little, I’m sure she would not be slow in coming forward if a woman started screaming at her when she was on her bike or whatever. Certainly on twitter she complains about women as well as men.

    The example you gave above of the cider man doesn’t even remotely sound like she’s attacking all men, but she is being insulting about one particular man. That’s not going to be to everyone’s tastes but it is her right, particularly if she’s just been in a nasty situation.

    There are lots of things you could quite legitimately disagree with (not least being blocked I suppose). It’s very negative for example. It focuses on individual’s behaviour. Naming and shaming may not be an effective technique at improving the way the world is, it’s more about catharsis than delivering change… but it’s a blog from someone who is fucked off with the way she is treated, and doesn’t try to be more tan that, it is not apriori against men.

    Anyway, I appreciate what you’re doing here but think this particular example is wide of the mark – although I’m not disputing that she banned/blocked you obviously

    • Hi Jim thanks for your comment.

      The thing is, why did she not publish my comment on her blog? If I didn’t have some kind of point? I wasn’t rude or offensive or personal. That is what got me thinking Ms Foster had some kind of agenda. I know she is popular and probably a great pal to many people. I said before this 101Wankers is not a statement about individuals as people. Just their behaviour online. And, in the case of Dawn, what I perceive to be their misandry. I will study her blog further and maybe write more to justify my pov as it has been criticised plenty here!

      But note. I haven’t deleted any comments however critical.

      • jim jepps says:

        I don’t know why she deleted you. I’m not going to try to defend her from that. If you weren’t being abusive I think it would be wrong to ban you. I actually don’t know what you wrote but am happy to take your word for it that you didn’t do anything to justify being deleted unless someone shows otherwise.

        Personally I don’t like to delete comments and rarely do so. I certainly want people to disagree with me, in the same way that a pub conversation is interesting with different points of view – but dull if it descends into abuse.

        In the last year I guess I’ve deleted a) death threats, b) personally abusive trolling and horrible comments about my girlfriend, c) a comment that libeled someone else d) during my coverage of an internal green party election I stated that I wouldn’t publish negative campaigning and so stopped two negative comments that happened to be against candidates I did not want to get elected and lastly e) some whacky claims about Jews which didn’t seem to add much to the debate.

        That makes me quite delete-y I guess, but I’ve never banned anyone for not agreeing even vehemently. If I couldn’t delete stuff like that i wouldn’t blog to be honest, I don’t see why my readers, freinds and family should put up with stuff that they wouldn’t put up with on a night out or whatever.

        Anyway, you’d reminded me I hadn’t read the 101 wankers blog for a while so I went and had a look – very well written and funny I think – and came across this;

        “The day wore on. I rode to a nearby industrial estate during my lunch break to get some toiletries for a trip to Edinburgh and some food.Parking my bike up, I went to Boots. On the way to Tesco, I noticed a woman sat astrode my bike shouting into her mobile phone and smoking. I approached her a little tentatively and said. “Er, excuse me. That’s my bike” She turned to look at me, and snarled “Yeah, and it’s also a seat. FUCK OFF!” I am at heart a bit of a wuss. I left her to it, and thankfully she was gone when I returned.”

        There are also a number of incidents with cars where she doesn’t see the driver and we don’t know if it’s a man. I’m pretty sure this part of your argument is misjudged, even if the rest (about banning) is right.

        • yeah I saw that woman mentioned. My point is how it contributes to a stereotype overall, of a ‘wanker’ a man, a loser. A man who harasses women on the street.

          I can’t prove it to you, I can only give you my perspective!

    • dennis mccann says:

      the thing that came over to me in her blog, was that ciderman was a worthless working class oik – it’s whats between the lines that’s important – and her reply was that a middle class being smugly superior. middleclass feminists , who needs them

      • I agree dennis. There was another one about a guy she presumed was a sad, lonely loser who was on his way home to cry into his take-away. This had nothing to do with how he treated her on the road. Like you say, reading between the lines one finds classist misandry. In my opinion.

        • Though look at this one. It is FULL of stereotypes:

          ‘Unfortunately, because it was sunny, I decided not to wear my burka today. So when a pair of drunken dishevelled gentlemen sat on the Anchor drinking Special Brew and reading the Daily Mail spied me coming towards them in my vest top, one of them shouted with glee, evidently channelling James Joyce: “Titties!” I wasn’t sure whether I was more annoyed by the fact that he was reading the Daily Mail, or the fact that he had shouted at me. Maybe he’d meant to pick up the Sun, and in his drink induced torpor had grabbed the wrong paper, was drowning in melancholy at being deprived of the opportunity to ogle some mammary glands and I’d saved him. I stopped and shouted. “Shouting at women causes cancer!” in a nod to this. He looked scared, then shocked, then a little bemused. I rode on. Maybe he went to his GP to get checked out.’

          • jim jepps says:

            They are only stereotypes if it isn’t true. I think you’re determined to prove something that isn’t really there, and now people have disagreed with you you are doublly determined to prove it. I know the feeling.

            You don’t like her writing style. That’s ok. You don’t like her because she blocked you. That’s understandable. But it is funny, it is about real events and as far as I can tell from talking to her it is basically how she remembers the events – it’s not about ‘men’, it’s about her day.

            I also love the “Shouting at women causes cancer!” Beautifully surreal.

  34. You are wrong about me Jim.

    All stereotypes have some ‘truth’ in them that is how they work!
    But we are never going to agree on this. You like Dawn’s writing. I don’t. It is not a personal issue and doesn’t relate to me being blocked, except in that when I was, it made me wonder what her agenda was even more than I already did beforehand.

    My god these 101 wankers are proving testy! ;D

    and for all this is an interesting discussion about another blogger’s work, it is a shame we can’t have it with the writer in question!

  35. jim jepps says:

    “All stereotypes have some ‘truth’ in them”

    I think you’ve got it the wrong way round. She’s been abused by pissed idiots and writes, scornfully, about them. She is not setting out to say something about men in general and then finding examples to prove it, this is something you are reading into it.

    I don’t need you to prove your point to me, however I don’t think you’ve said one thing that even feels like evidence of this particular point. It feels like it’s something you want to be true and you’re looking around for anything to back up the theory.

    Other points you’re making feel more substantive and a little bit undermined by this one part of your argument. Anyway, we’re clearly going to have to agree to disagree on this, which is a shame.

    Knowing Dawn, as I do, I just think you’re wide of the mark about her ‘agenda’.

    • well how am I supposed to find out more if she won’t speak to me or anyone who disagrees with her? if you know her maybe you could ask her that? Really I am not going to be all nicey nice about people whose attitude to debate is to close off any hint of a critique. You are enjoying the full freedom to critique me all you like. She does not offer that luxury. If you know her maybe you know why.

  36. JustAPunter says:

    OK then, I’ll try again. My last comment went into ‘moderation’ and never appeared.

    You criticise Brooke Magnanti for not allowing comments. Why? The internet and blogs are a free space to say whatever you want. If you don’t like her blog then best not to read it, but there’s no earthly reason why she is obliged to give you space to comment on it. After all you can do that here.

    My do you moderate the comments here? It can only be because you think you might delete some of them sometime. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any moderation atall.

    Maybe Brooke Magnanti just can’t be bothered. It’s here choice, and your criticism of that choice is non-sensical.

    • The simple explanation is that moderation is NEEDED to prevent spammers.

      Moderation is often WANTED by some folks for the added benefit of silencing dissenters.

      For example, I’m a veteran of atheist blogs. People who came in just to quote scripture were banned. (As atheists, we do not believe in the inherent truth of any holy scripture, so using it to support your point was pointless.)

      However, because we valued honest debate, we would NEVER ban a theist who came in to explain rationally why we were wrong. We wouldn’t do it because it would HURT OUR CAUSE because we would be no better than the censorial religions we were speaking against.

      When feminists who believe in the Patriarchy (scripture) come here to argue from a point of full Patriarchal Acceptance (meaning they are assuming that their Patriarchy is real), they probably should get banned – but they don’t.

      When non-feminist or feminist dissenters go to feminist blogs and challenge the Patriarchy, they are banned.

      This gets back to the ‘safe space’ issue. I don’t have a problem with Christians discussing scripture and banning atheists from challenging their core beliefs.

      I don’t have a problem with Atheists discussing religious harm and banning theists from joining in.

      I don’t have a problem with Radical Feminists discussing the harm the patriarchy does while banning non-radfems from challenging the existence of the patriarchy.

      But you can’t claim to be a “feminist” site and ban people who deny or challenge the existance of the patriarchy. The patriarchy’s EXISTANCE is not crucial to the existance of feminists!

      God what a tangent. Did I answer your question? I don’t even know.
      (It’s been a long week.)

      • JustAPunter says:

        Did you answer my question?

        No. QRG says this about Brooke Magnanti:

        “Brooke Magnanti (aka @BelledeJour_uk) – Brooke/Belle is one of the most successful sex bloggers of our time, and has had her blog turned into very popular books. She now blogs about sex/sex work and ‘feminism’ for a forthcoming book called ‘Sexonomics’. She is a bit like the queen bee of the sex writing world. I have felt the sting in her tail. Brooke also has a blog for her ‘sexonomics’ writing where she does not allow comments. It’s a lecture not a conversation.”

        QRG seems to think she has a right to have a conversation with Brooke Magnanti. She hasn’t. If Brooke Magnanti wants to write a blog which is a ‘lecture not a conversation’ then that’s up to her. It doesn’t make the blog less worthwhile or interesting. It isn’t invalid in some way just because she doesn’t invite every tom, dick and harriet to join in the fun.

        Perhaps, being a target of so much drivel, she just can’t be bothered to do the filtering.

        Also by doing it that way she doesn’t have to jump through any of the intellectual hoops deciding who she will or won’t ‘allow’ to participate in the discussion. Like you have just demonstrated.

        She’s made her blog a one way street. Read it or not. Disagree or not, but if you want to talk about it you’ll have to do that somewhere else. I can’t see the problem with a blanket ban on comments.

        Just because somebody, QRG in this case, doesn’t like it doesn’t make it wrong.

        • JustAPunter says:

          But I get your point about spammers, on a technical level. Isn’t that what those annoying ‘type the words below into this box’ thingies are for?

          Still, if BM doesn’t allow any comments she won’t get any spammers will she, problem solved!!

        • I apologize, JAP. I read what I wanted to read.

          If you have a blog that purports some opinion and ESPECIALLY if you intend to persuade people to your point of view, you cannot be taken seriously if you disallow comments.

          If you have a blog that simply points out factual happenstance on a particular interest (for example, a J.K. Rowling Stalking Blog that links to recent and upcoming appearances), you could not reasonably be blamed for disallowing comments.

  37. If there is nothing censorious about being blocked on twitter, why does Belle de jour block every single person who challenges her research or her opinions?

    This is ‘censorious’. Its not ‘censorship’ she is not a government but it is fucking annoying when we are all trying to increase understanding about sexuality/sex work for example and she is stood in the middle holding fort like a queen of the castle.

  38. McDuff says:

    I don’t know, given as it’s fucking Twitter and 140 characters minus those needed to write “@belldujour” I can’t imagine that it really makes that much difference.

    I’m sure it’s annoying to you that people sometimes get sick of you and decide they don’t want to listen to you any more. But that’s what it is. They don’t have to listen to you. You can’t make them. And the trouble is that if you whine about people not listening to you more than you say things worth listening to, other people are going to suspect they have a point.

    • NO its not Mcduff and making out twitter isnt important in discourse is ridiculous. why do so many journalists use it?

      Its not just me – bDJ blocks everyone who challenges her.

      and p.s. you are MUCH MUCH more whiny than me you really are. I can’t bear your whining but I don’t block you because I am not a WANKER.

      • McDuff says:

        So, did you manage to figure out the mechanism by which the Guardian was representative of the UK and the combined output of the Mail/Sun/Star/Express was not yet? Or did you decide that figures are whining?

        Given that you’re the one saying “nobody listens to me!” and “you all don’t get my hilarious jokery!” I must say I’m disinclined to buy the “I don’t whine you do so there” line of argument.

  39. I feel like I shouldn’t have hit “post comment” yet.

    Here’s a non-inflammatory, extremely random analogy:
    If the discussion is “Why does the clown keep cutting his feet on broken glass”
    It’s not helpful to come in and argue whether or not the clown has feet.

    If the discussion is “How do we help the clown from injuring his feet from broken glass?”
    It IS NECESSARILY helpful to discuss if the clown should stop walking, not walk there, or take a different path – especially if the current discussion seems centered around what kind of shoes would best protect the clown.

    Does that help?

    I think most people here would argue that when feminists identify a problem that women face, they default to a discussion that presupposes certain conditions (begs the question) or ((the clown cannot avoid the broken glass – so let’s figure out a way to insulate his feet from the glass)) without asking the original question:
    Is it possible to avoid this situation so that extra protection isn’t necessary?

  40. Not thoughtfulness, they obviously put a lot of THOUGHT into their long, presumptuous blog posts.

    I think they need some damn skepticism.

  41. this is comment 99. I wonder if this thread will survive past 101…or will some WANKER come along and pull the plug?

    Who knows?!

  42. OK we are up to 104 wankers! Because Nico made a point about comments and replies being nested which I wanted to reply to. A useful, practical point!

    BUT THIS THREAD IS CLOSED. I will write more on 101 wankers soon!

    Have a nice day!

    XX

  43. […] said to me: ‘do not speak to or about me ever again’. She also blocks me on twitter, as do most feminist journalists and bloggers (many of whom also ban me from commenting on their blogs). So when she says ‘let’s talk’ I […]

  44. asif says:

    please die.
    thanks.

    • congrats you’re on the list – that’s @eighths on twitter who wished me and others a slow painful death by cancer. Nice!

    • Steph D says:

      asif (you could do with a capital letter for your name)
      Please get a life.
      Thanks.

      QRG have you done a post on the most imaginative insults you or others have recieved? If not whats the most imaginitive insult you have ever recieved?

      • they are rarely imaginative steph. I thought it took some chutzpah when someone ‘stole’ my twitter handle though. I changed my name on twitter briefly and they took my @quietriot_girl name!

        I also get called a man a lot or ‘the owner of an honorary penis’ and that always makes me laugh.

        • Steph D says:

          Well I suppose in some of their eyes being called a man is an massive insult. Still I don’t get ‘the owner of an honorary penis’ remark wouldn’t you have had to have been given it from some sort of institution? If that is the case surely an institution of feminists could not have given you an honorary penis so who do they think gave you it.

          Shame I was hoping for more imagination those insults come across as childish and defensive (also I’m reading a bit of envy and desire mixed in for the penis comment).

  45. […] a lot, and called a ‘troll’ among other things. I keep a record of my blockers on my 101 Wankers post. I am up to about 50 already and that’s definitely not a comprehensive […]

  46. Henry says:

    “Steven Baxter… runs the Enemies of Reason blog. It’s aptly named”

    I like this. Similar to a quote from a George Bernard Shaw art review that made it into the biog by Holroyd. Went something like ” ‘Disaster’ is the title given by the artist to this painting, and, on the whole, I agree”

      • oddboggle says:

        IMO Most militant pro/anti folks generally only get by because they wear blinkers to protect them from the irritating, niggling hypocrisy of their arguments. I find most militant feminists and anti-feminists quite dishonest or dillusional. Too much sneering and not enough trying to understand their opposition.

        And is a pre-emptive warning of a ‘loss of sense of humour syndrome’ much different from blocking dissent? Someone disagrees and their humour is called into question, the rug pulled from under their argument. It’s just a different method.
        Same shit, different gravy.
        .

        • Hi – thanks for your comment.

          I agree I hate the pro v anti feminism thing. My ‘anti-feminism’ only emerges as a result of frustrations with the feminism I grew up with throughout my whole life. I don’t want it to be a war but there are some things I cannot just let lie.

          I would accept your point about me closing down debate with my opener if there were not over a hundred comments on here, some of which quite strident against my point of view!

  47. Wow! You certainly have a knack for crossing people, QRG. :-) With many of these people, particularly on the “high profile feminists” list, many of these people are some thoroughly nasty pieces of work, and one would have to be utterly blind not to have problems with them.

    Some of the other people, Brooke Magnanti and Anna Arrowsmith, I can’t see why you have a problem with; they seem to largely avoid drama, and one would have to go out of your way to cross them. And the “What About the Menz” blog, surprised you got blocked there. They seem to have one the more open comments policy, and I’ve certainly said negative things there about, say, Amanda Marcotte without getting blocked. Then again, they have “no trashing” policies in commenting, and if one puts in too many posts going after somebody, the moderators probably will step in. It seems to be more of a general “keep it positive” rule than standing by any blogger in particular, though.

    Surprised to see no mention of Hugo Schwyzer, Amanda Marcotte, or Jill from “I Blame the Patriarchy”. Those are the three “big bloggers” for whom I’d most like to throw some virtual molotov cocktails into their internet treehouse. (OK, Schwyzer’s treehouse is already burning.) But one’s mileage may vary.

    But I sympathize with your position. I’m planning a blog post in the next few weeks taking on a few high-profile sex bloggers for their increasingly radfem-lite sentiments, and I’ll probably be on all sorts of “block” lists/dropped by many allies as well after coming out with this. Honesty beats biting your tongue, though.

  48. pukkatronic says:

    Very witty stuff. Of the names I recognise most would indeed seem to suffer from wankery of the worst kind. Such people are interested in monologue not dialogue and most love hearing the sound of their own gendered rhetoric. I believe they are all in the same luvvie club and anyone not in it is some kind of unreconstructed neanderthal. There rhetoric should be questioned and challenged at every turn. So well done you.

  49. […] (e.g. me) he can label them a bully and then block them online. As I have pointed out in my 101 Wankers post, blocking is a very common way of blanking out opinions and perspectives and people you […]

  50. […] Posts Feminist Witch HuntsReal Men Get Raped101 WankersMetro-Killer: Quest-ce-que C’est?AboutWe need to talk about bummingMetrosexy HegemonyNice Tits, […]

  51. […] Riot Girl disrupts things quite a lot. And she gets shit for it and often gets banned or blocked. Those who hate what she says and how she says it have even gone so far as to pressure blog editors […]

  52. […] först deklarerad “honorary man***“, sedan blev hon blockad av så många hon gjorde en lista. Vidare så “outade” feminister hennes riktiga […]

  53. […] of all the people who ban and block me online, named after a feminist blog of the same name, called 101 Wankers. I have now reached and surpassed my “target” and have stopped counting. But this […]

  54. Robin Brunskill says:

    Just a thought… Seems like this is a list of Opinion Formers in our society. And as Opinion Formers, they prefer Sheeple to People, because People have opinions that are formed by themselves. People, therefore, get blocked. The entire gay/not gay thing, isn’t really the point. The point is that the Opinion Formers can only interact with Sheeple and vice versa.

  55. […] bannlyst och blockerat mig online, uppkallad efter en feministisk blogg med samma namn, nämligen 101 Wankers. Jag har nu nått och överträffat målet, och håller inte längre räkningen. Men de fick ändå […]

  56. lee says:

    im upset. nobody even mentioned me, and i’m the worlds biggest wanker!!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s