Germaine Greer thinks women are treated worse now than they were in the 1970's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10791712/Germaine-Greer-online-trolling-shows-men-now-even-less-tolerant-of-women.html

The link above outlines how social media has made a woman's lot even worse in this co called modern age.

Women who are not anonymous online are often subjected to horrific hostile trolling regarding their physical appearance,status and anything else considered not perfect about their lives.

Women online are also subject to death threats and all sorts of intimidation that for some reason men do not seem to experience online.Why is this?

Teenage girls are expected to resemble Miley Cyrus and Rhianna,if they don't have the perfect body or their face doesn't fit they can expect to be ridiculed online on social media.That must be a horrific thing to endure as a teenage girl when coping mechanisms aren't fully evolved anyway.

It is pressure,too much pressure.Why are women targeted online for their 'supposed' flaws,are women and teenage girls meant to be perfect now in their appearance and achievements?

FluffyBunny wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10791712/Germaine-Greer-online-trolling-shows-men-now-even-less-tolerant-of-women.html

The link above outlines how social media has made a woman's lot even worse in this co called modern age.

Women who are not anonymous online are often subjected to horrific hostile trolling regarding their physical appearance,status and anything else considered not perfect about their lives.

Women online are also subject to death threats and all sorts of intimidation that for some reason men do not seem to experience online.Why is this?

Teenage girls are expected to resemble Miley Cyrus and Rhianna,if they don't have the perfect body or their face doesn't fit they can expect to be ridiculed online on social media.That must be a horrific thing to endure as a teenage girl when coping mechanisms aren't fully evolved anyway.

It is pressure,too much pressure.Why are women targeted online for their 'supposed' flaws,are women and teenage girls meant to be perfect now in their appearance and achievements?

Oh I know! Some people keep saying that I must be ugly. It's terrible.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10791712/Germaine-Greer-online-trolling-shows-men-now-even-less-tolerant-of-women.html

The link above outlines how social media has made a woman's lot even worse in this co called modern age.

Women who are not anonymous online are often subjected to horrific hostile trolling regarding their physical appearance,status and anything else considered not perfect about their lives.

Women online are also subject to death threats and all sorts of intimidation that for some reason men do not seem to experience online.Why is this?

Teenage girls are expected to resemble Miley Cyrus and Rhianna,if they don't have the perfect body or their face doesn't fit they can expect to be ridiculed online on social media.That must be a horrific thing to endure as a teenage girl when coping mechanisms aren't fully evolved anyway.

It is pressure,too much pressure.Why are women targeted online for their 'supposed' flaws,are women and teenage girls meant to be perfect now in their appearance and achievements?

Oh I know! Some people keep saying that I must be ugly. It's terrible.   

Yes well you probably are   

Its not just about looks,if you read the article,women experience intimidation and abuse online that men don't seem to.Why the inbalance is the point of the article.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I know! Some people keep saying that I must be ugly. It's terrible.   

Yes well you probably are   

Its not just about looks,if you read the article,women experience intimidation and abuse online that men don't seem to.Why the inbalance is the point of the article.

You're now joining in the abuse?  

Someone on another forum keeps hassling someone to tell them how "hideous" I am. Can you believe that someone would do that?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Yes well you probably are   

Its not just about looks,if you read the article,women experience intimidation and abuse online that men don't seem to.Why the inbalance is the point of the article.

You're now joining in the abuse?  

Someone on another forum keeps hassling someone to tell them how "hideous" I am. Can you believe that someone would do that?   

I don't think the forum feud you are referring to (despite droning onto other people that referring to other forums isn't allowed   ) is applicable here.You are all equally hateful to each other so you cancel each other out.

I did want to discuss a genuine problem here Ragga...!

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You're now joining in the abuse?  

Someone on another forum keeps hassling someone to tell them how "hideous" I am. Can you believe that someone would do that?   

I don't think the forum feud you are referring to (despite droning onto other people that referring to other forums isn't allowed   ) is applicable here.You are all equally hateful to each other so you cancel each the out.

I did want to discuss a genuine problem here Ragga...!

No you didn't - you just wanted to whine about being treated "badly" on forums again. You're as bad as those who you complain about.

I would like to know why someone would take someone's photo, alter it, and then mock the way they look in the altered photo. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind that?

Raggamuffin wrote:I would like to know why someone would take someone's photo, alter it, and then mock the way they look in the altered photo. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind that?

I experienced worse misogyny than the person you are referring to.

What is the reasoning behind uploading animals in wigs to mock someone? Jealousy maybe because there is nothing wrong with the way I look   

It is all part of the same mentality I agree but there is a difference Ragga.There is history (that I don't know about) that prompted that altered photo you refer to. I had no history with those who abused me.

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I don't think the forum feud you are referring to (despite droning onto other people that referring to other forums isn't allowed   ) is applicable here.You are all equally hateful to each other so you cancel each the out.

I did want to discuss a genuine problem here Ragga...!

No you didn't - you just wanted to whine about being treated "badly" on forums again. You're as bad as those who you complain about.

I don't want to whine at all,why would I. I've been dealt a good hand compared to my detractors.  

I do think social media is being used by misogynists to abuse women as the article highlights,and men don't receive the same treatment.i would like to know why that is.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No you didn't - you just wanted to whine about being treated "badly" on forums again. You're as bad as those who you complain about.

I don't want to whine at all,why would I. I've been dealt a good hand compared to my detractors.  

I do think social media is being used by misogynists to abuse women as the article highlights,and men don't receive the same treatment.i would like to know why that is.

Men do receive the same treatment on some websites, as well you know ...

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I would like to know why someone would take someone's photo, alter it, and then mock the way they look in the altered photo. Can anyone explain the reasoning behind that?

I experienced worse misogyny than the person you are referring to.

What is the reasoning behind uploading animals in wigs to mock someone? Jealousy maybe because there is nothing wrong with the way I look   

It is all part of the same mentality I agree but there is a difference Ragga.There is history (that I don't know about) that prompted that altered photo you refer to. I had no history with those who abused me.

You think that's worse than altering someone's face to make it look like they have a deformity?  

What about posting a pic of a woman and using the title "forum spastic" underneath it? Is that acceptable to you Fluffy?

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I experienced worse misogyny than the person you are referring to.

What is the reasoning behind uploading animals in wigs to mock someone? Jealousy maybe because there is nothing wrong with the way I look   

It is all part of the same mentality I agree but there is a difference Ragga.There is history (that I don't know about) that prompted that altered photo you refer to. I had no history with those who abused me.

You think that's worse than altering someone's face to make it look like they have a deformity?  

You are determind to completely hijack this thread.

I don't know what that person did to prompt that action against them.What I know of that person's character they are extremely abusive themselves and would do the same thing to others.

Raggamuffin wrote:What about posting a pic of a woman and using the title "forum spastic" underneath it? Is that acceptable to you Fluffy?

No and I told one of the Admin.However again,that individual called someone else a sp*stic and so received the same treatment back.

However no I did not agree with it.But I don't believe any of this is is applicable because you are talking about a tiny group of people.

The article refers to abuse and intimidation on a national scale against women on social media where those women have not prompted any negative actions or done anything wrong to others but be women.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think that's worse than altering someone's face to make it look like they have a deformity?  

You are determind to completely hijack this thread.

I don't know what that person did to prompt that action against them.What I know of that person's character they are extremely abusive themselves and would do the same thing to others.

Seems that way, and it's a very serious subject. Look at what happened to the women who campaigned for Emily Bronte to be portrayed on stamps and the abuse and death threats they got. Tip of the iceberg.

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

I don't want to whine at all,why would I. I've been dealt a good hand compared to my detractors.  

I do think social media is being used by misogynists to abuse women as the article highlights,and men don't receive the same treatment.i would like to know why that is.

Men do receive the same treatment on some websites, as well you know ...

No,they don't NATIONALLY or TYPICALLY that's the point.

If people go around threatening others and make disgusting comments regarding people's family members who have passed away I think they can expect a bit of online abuse.

Don't push it.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think that's worse than altering someone's face to make it look like they have a deformity?  

You are determind to completely hijack this thread.

I don't know what that person did to prompt that action against them.What I know of that person's character they are extremely abusive themselves and would do the same thing to others.

You think there was justification for doing it?   

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What about posting a pic of a woman and using the title "forum spastic" underneath it? Is that acceptable to you Fluffy?

No and I told one of the Admin.However again,that individual called someone else a sp*stic and so received the same treatment back.

However no I did not agree with it.But I don't believe any of this is is applicable because you are talking about a tiny group of people.

The article refers to abuse and intimidation on a national scale against women on social media where those women have not prompted any negative actions or done anything wrong to others but be women.

Oh but you condone such behaviour yourself, so what's your point?

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

You are determind to completely hijack this thread.

I don't know what that person did to prompt that action against them.What I know of that person's character they are extremely abusive themselves and would do the same thing to others.

You think there was justification for doing it?   

OFGS!   Can you never discuss anything important without all this?

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Men do receive the same treatment on some websites, as well you know ...

No,they don't NATIONALLY or TYPICALLY that's the point.

If people go around threatening others and make disgusting comments regarding people's family members who have passed away I think they can expect a bit of online abuse.

Don't push it.

Don't push what? The fact that you're one of the worst hypocrites around?

Speaking of disgusting comments about people's family members who have passed away, how do you feel about someone calling a deceased person a paedophile?

Sassy wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

You are determind to completely hijack this thread.

I don't know what that person did to prompt that action against them.What I know of that person's character they are extremely abusive themselves and would do the same thing to others.

Seems that way, and it's a very serious subject.   Look at what happened to the women who campaigned for Emily Bronte to be portrayed on stamps and the abuse and death threats they got.   Tip of the iceberg.

Mary Beard is another example.All she did was appear on Question Time and be herself and because she is not considered commercially attractive she received a horrific amount of abusive and sexual tweets on social media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21159779

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

You are determind to completely hijack this thread.

I don't know what that person did to prompt that action against them.What I know of that person's character they are extremely abusive themselves and would do the same thing to others.

You think there was justification for doing it?   

I don't think Fluff is talking about someone retaliating against abuse they have received on a particular forum. The subject is the national abuse of women on the internet every time they put forward something to promote a women's subject for example, ie Emily Bronte.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think there was justification for doing it?   

OFGS!   Can you never discuss anything important without all this?

No,she can't.

I have explained to her already that I don't approve of the way women in the particular feud she refers to were treated but those women were also abusive and disgusting to other people themselves.

It's not relevant to the OP.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think there was justification for doing it?   

I don't think Fluff is talking about someone retaliating against abuse they have received on a particular forum.   The subject is the national abuse of women on the internet every time they put forward something to promote a women's subject for example, ie Emily Bronte.  

They were not retaliating.

Fluffy is IMO a WUM and a fake.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Sassy wrote:

OFGS!   Can you never discuss anything important without all this?

No,she can't.

I have explained to her already that I don't approve of the way women in the particular feud she refers to were treated but those women were also abusive and disgusting to other people themselves.

It's not relevant to the OP.

Oh but you do approve of it, and you join in yourself. You're also abusive about men.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Seems that way, and it's a very serious subject.   Look at what happened to the women who campaigned for Emily Bronte to be portrayed on stamps and the abuse and death threats they got.   Tip of the iceberg.

Mary Beard is another example.All she did was appear on Question Time and be herself and because she is not considered commercially attractive she received a horrific amount of abusive and sexual tweets on social media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21159779

I quite agree. In her case luckily the campaign backfired, because there were enough people out there who appreciated her for her brain, not her looks. In the end, she won, hands down. Would there were more cases like that.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You think there was justification for doing it?   

I don't think Fluff is talking about someone retaliating against abuse they have received on a particular forum.   The subject is the national abuse of women on the internet every time they put forward something to promote a women's subject for example, ie Emily Bronte.  

Thankyou Sassy    yes I am.

Although oftentimes women on social media receive abuse whether they are promoting women's issues or not.Often they get abuse just for being women.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I don't think Fluff is talking about someone retaliating against abuse they have received on a particular forum.   The subject is the national abuse of women on the internet every time they put forward something to promote a women's subject for example, ie Emily Bronte.  

Thankyou Sassy    yes I am.

Although oftentimes women on social media receive abuse whether they are promoting women's issues or not.Often they get abuse just for being women.

Or a man pretending to be a woman.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

No,she can't.

I have explained to her already that I don't approve of the way women in the particular feud she refers to were treated but those women were also abusive and disgusting to other people themselves.

It's not relevant to the OP.

Oh but you do approve of it, and you join in yourself. You're also abusive about men.

If you are referring to GIG, he was absolutely vile when I found my daughter dead. If you think I was going to stand for it you have another think coming.

Now, could you possibly get your head round talking about the subject in hand?

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Thankyou Sassy    yes I am.

Although oftentimes women on social media receive abuse whether they are promoting women's issues or not.Often they get abuse just for being women.

Or a man pretending to be a woman.   

Is that what you are doing, I did wonder.

Sassy wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

Mary Beard is another example.All she did was appear on Question Time and be herself and because she is not considered commercially attractive she received a horrific amount of abusive and sexual tweets on social media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21159779

I quite agree.   In her case luckily the campaign backfired, because there were enough people out there who appreciated her for her brain, not her looks.   In the end, she won, hands down.   Would there were more cases like that.

But what does it say about the mentality of men who think it's ok to be abusive to women just because they are of a certain age or don't fit the stereotypical mould.

I think it's an unsettling disturbing mentality.I think social media allows people to be the misogynists they want to be in real life but can't be due to social norms.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh but you do approve of it, and you join in yourself. You're also abusive about men.

If you are referring to GIG, he was absolutely vile when I found my daughter dead.   If you think I was going to stand for it you have another think coming.

Now, could you possibly get your head round talking about the subject in hand?

I was not referring to GIG, I was referring to some of Fluffy's friends.

Re the subject matter, what do you think of someone who calls a woman a "retarded slag" or even "whorebunny"?

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Or a man pretending to be a woman.   

Is that what you are doing, I did wonder.

Possibly.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

If you are referring to GIG, he was absolutely vile when I found my daughter dead.   If you think I was going to stand for it you have another think coming.

Now, could you possibly get your head round talking about the subject in hand?

I was not referring to GIG, I was referring to some of Fluffy's friends.

Re the subject matter, what do you think of someone who calls a woman a "retarded slag" or even "whorebunny"?

You have no interest in discussing the OP Ragga,what happened to your insistence that people must not discuss other forums??

You are being a complete hypocrite.

FluffyBunny wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I quite agree.   In her case luckily the campaign backfired, because there were enough people out there who appreciated her for her brain, not her looks.   In the end, she won, hands down.   Would there were more cases like that.

But what does it say about the mentality of men who think it's ok to be abusive to women just because they are of a certain age or don't fit the stereotypical mould.

I think it's an unsettling disturbing mentality.I think social media allows people to be the misogynists they want to be in real life but can't be due to social norms.

Now ain't that the truth. The number of online misogynists who are probably terrified of women in real life is beyond count. Life lesson, make sure you have a man who isn't one, in life or on line  ::D:: 

FluffyBunny wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I was not referring to GIG, I was referring to some of Fluffy's friends.

Re the subject matter, what do you think of someone who calls a woman a "retarded slag" or even "whorebunny"?

You have no interest in discussing the OP Ragga,what happened to your insistence that people must not discuss other forums??

You are being a complete hypocrite.

Oh well, I expect that person was just retaliating to abuse eh?  ://?roflmao?/: 

Raggamuffin wrote:

FluffyBunny wrote:

You have no interest in discussing the OP Ragga,what happened to your insistence that people must not discuss other forums??

You are being a complete hypocrite.

Oh well, I expect that person was just retaliating to abuse eh?  ://?roflmao?/: 

Well, IF you are a woman Ragga, I'd put you on the level of intelligence of a Barbie Doll, reaching the heights of Mary Beard would be unavailable to you.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh well, I expect that person was just retaliating to abuse eh?  ://?roflmao?/: 

Well, IF you are a woman Ragga, I'd put you on the level of intelligence of a Barbie Doll, reaching the heights of Mary Beard would be unavailable to you.

Insulting women on the internet Sassy? How dreadful of you.   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Well, IF you are a woman Ragga, I'd put you on the level of intelligence of a Barbie Doll, reaching the heights of Mary Beard would be unavailable to you.

Insulting women on the internet Sassy? How dreadful of you.   

I'm not insulting you, I'm stating the level of intelligence you show on the net. You probably like being a Barbie Doll  ::D:: 

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Insulting women on the internet Sassy? How dreadful of you.   

I'm not insulting you, I'm stating the level of intelligence you show on the net.   You probably like being a Barbie Doll  ::D:: 

Ooooh, comparing women to Barbie dolls is a bit sexist Sassy. Are you sure you're not one of those men who Fluffy is talking about?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I'm not insulting you, I'm stating the level of intelligence you show on the net.   You probably like being a Barbie Doll  ::D:: 

Ooooh, comparing women to Barbie dolls is a bit sexist Sassy. Are you sure you're not one of those men who Fluffy is talking about?   

Not in the least, there are many woman who get a great deal of enjoyment out of being Barbie Dolls.   That is their decision.   There are many men who like to be adored because of their looks.   However, I wouldn't be interested in having an intellectual discussion with either of them.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


Ooooh, comparing women to Barbie dolls is a bit sexist Sassy. Are you sure you're not one of those men who Fluffy is talking about?   

Not in the least, there are many woman who get a great deal of enjoyment out of being Barbie Dolls.   That is their decision.   There are many men who like to be adored because of their looks.   However, I wouldn't be interested in having an intellectual discussion with either of them.

What with you being such an intellectual person you mean?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Not in the least, there are many woman who get a great deal of enjoyment out of being Barbie Dolls.   That is their decision.   There are many men who like to be adored because of their looks.   However, I wouldn't be interested in having an intellectual discussion with either of them.

What with you being such an intellectual person you mean?   

I like a degree of intellect in my discussions that someone who thought that looks were the most important thing in life would not be able to provide.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What with you being such an intellectual person you mean?   

I like a degree of intellect in my discussions that someone who thought that looks were the most important thing in life would not be able to provide.

Oh I see. Do you mean a degree of intellect that involves spamming a thread just because you don't like the subject matter?   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Sassy wrote:

I like a degree of intellect in my discussions that someone who thought that looks were the most important thing in life would not be able to provide.

Oh I see. Do you mean a degree of intellect that involves spamming a thread just because you don't like the subject matter?   

You mean I get pissed off with idiots.   You are quite right.

Now, as you don't wish, or are unable, to pursue the subject properly I'll leave you to it as I have other things to do.

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I see. Do you mean a degree of intellect that involves spamming a thread just because you don't like the subject matter?   

You mean I get pissed off with idiots.   You are quite right.

Now, as you don't wish, or are unable, to pursue the subject properly I'll leave you to it as I have other things to do.

It was you who started banging on about Barbie dolls, not me.  ::D:: 

Sassy wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I see. Do you mean a degree of intellect that involves spamming a thread just because you don't like the subject matter?   

You mean I get pissed off with idiots.   You are quite right.

Now, as you don't wish, or are unable, to pursue the subject properly I'll leave you to it as I have other things to do.

That post is just crying out for a "so there!"
and a

I have to say - this issue is as serious as you want to make it.

It's the same for the women - no, teenage girls are not expected to look like Miley Cyrus - that's in some peoples heads.

Targets online for those who are not anonymous? And they have lessons at school and hopefully by their parents on how to stay safe online?

Well when i was at school we had lessons on how to stay safe crossing the road - i listened and here i am now.

Nems wrote:

Sassy wrote:

You mean I get pissed off with idiots.   You are quite right.

Now, as you don't wish, or are unable, to pursue the subject properly I'll leave you to it as I have other things to do.

That post is just crying out for a "so there!"
and a

 ::rfth:: 

BigAndy9 wrote:I have to say - this issue is as serious as you want to make it.

It's the same for the women - no, teenage girls are not expected to look like Miley Cyrus - that's in some peoples heads.

Targets online for those who are not anonymous?  And they have lessons at school and hopefully by their parents on how to stay safe online?

Well when i was at school we had lessons on how to stay safe crossing the road - i listened and here i am now.

You have added nothing valid or even accurate here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21159779

Actually try listening to Mary beard and what was said to her,the fact people deemed it acceptable too talk to a woman like that for no reason at all,and try coming back with an answer of substance.