Motivation for feminist blogs and why abusive comments are not a problem

 Sady Doyle - abusive comments

There has been a recent effort to highlight the fact that feminists bloggers occasionally get called names and receive threats from commenters on their blogs or articles. 
My argument is that deep down these women want the abuse or at the very least don't mind it.
If a female blogger writes a post and nobody responds, would she prefer that to a load of responses along the lines of 'stop whining bitch'?
Think about it.
What usually happens after a blogpost or article on feminism receives abusive comments? Seeing the comments, the feminist blogger lets her feminists buddies know about the horrible abuse she is getting or people see the blogpost themselves.  They all come in and support her saying things like 'typical - this is why we need more legislation', 'Ignore the trolls- i loved your post'.  This obviously makes the woman feel good as she is sharing the experience of abuse and gaining emotional support from other women. Rather than a specific problem peculiar to that individual woman, the problem now becomes that she is simply a woman.  All these other women are now in the same boat as her sharing the problem of being a woman -  she is not alone.
She would prefer the abuse to no response at all.  Why?  Because it legitimises her thesis that men are the cause of her unhappiness. 
Do not discount the case that the 'verbal abusers' and 'trolls' can tell that this is an unhappy woman blaming her unhappiness on men and that they are actually verbally abusing her to make her happy.  These 'abusers' are probably capable of posting a reasonable response, comprehensively dismantling her argument, but they know that if they did that she would no longer be able to blame men for her unhappiness.  Which would make her unhappy.  Consequently the sisterhood would break down and she would be alone again faced with a problem peculiar to her and not all women.  Given that most men are kind-hearted and do not like women to be unhappy, they do not do this; instead they post ad hominem attacks.

Feminist Bloggers, New Statesman

Helen Lewis Hattersley has wrote an article in the New Statesman about how feminist bloggers get angry responses.  Here is my response:

You have discounted the notion that some people like being abused. 
If you are an unhappy person and you write an article complaining about something, you are bound to get an angry response because most people think - why are you burdening me with your problem?
Before calling for legislation to regulate the internet, as Cath Elliott suggests, it might be worth asking would there be any negative consequences to this? 
For a start, some people like being called names; maybe like is the wrong word - but they at least find it preferable to no response at all -some find a hate-filled response  preferable to a positive response; indeed one blogger above found a nasty response amusing. 
The point is you cannot regulate how poeple respond to your public appearances or writings.  To do so would be to live in a police state.
These people haven't stopped you so far. 
Indeed if you are a feminst blogger who enjoys blogging about feminism, have you ever considered that these verbal-attackers are posting nasty responses out of kindness because they think that is what you want?  It certainly legitimises a lot of feminist writings.  If there hadn't been these verbal attacks, you wouldn't have enjoyed making this blogpost would you Helen?
So, carry on your complaining feminists if it makes you feel better, but please stop before you go about stifling free speech via legislation. 
A better step would be to stop worrying about other women , stop depressing people and concentrate on your own life.

Not clear women dislike coalition

Apparently, according to The Guardian, women dislike the coalition more than men.  This had led to a consultation of feminist groups who surprise, surprise are complaining that they are being treated badly by the government.

First off, I look at the graph and it isn't obvious that the female vote is falling comparatively worse to males. 

Feminist women are looking for special treatment.  They want to feel like someone is looking after them.  This may make the individual feminist or female Labour politician (or Lynn Featherstone) feel better that they are having their wishes fulfilled, but what is the psychological effect on society?  Remember that it is our taxes that are being used for politicians to spend as they wish.   It is our freedom to say and do what we want, and social norms, that are being affected by this kind of feminist legislation.  They do not have a right to do this in my opinion. 

By government taking action in the name of women, it makes men feel like there is a problem and that they are being forced to work harder to cope with this 'women problem'.  This causes anxiety and makes them feel they have lost control.  It is also at odds with their experience, because they are quite capable of making the women in their lives happier.  Women's happiness isn't dependent on money.  It is to a large degree dependent on how their man (or significant other) treats them.  Women live with men.  Women want the men in their lives to be happy too - otherwise women become anxious and unhappy..  Men naturally take care of women.  They prefer to be the ones to make the women in their lives feel better, and enjoy doing so.  But instead of this happening, we are told from above that 'we have a problem'. But men cannot solve this problem; the government has to solve it.  So you are making men feel bad, but are saying there is nothing we can do to solve it.  Men just want women to be happy.

Why make men feel like they have a burden on their shoulders?   That is not fair.
Also, it isn't ordinary working class women who are calling for special treatment, it is middle class women MP's and women in feminist societies, a lot of whom it seems have a psychological need for emotional support, that are calling for things to be done 'for women' (and not men). Obviously, this feels good for the individual feminist MP to have so much power and to feel like someone is looking out for them and fulfilling their every request, but real working class women aren't benefiting from this.  In other words, the feminist MP's and societies are calling for women to become a burden on men.  This makes men unhappy.  Living with these unhappy men makes ordinary women unhappy.   So it may be a surprise to the individual middle class feminist MP, but most working class women don't want you to do anything specifically for them (and not men).  Unlike the emotionally needy feminists, most women are naturally quite happy.  They have the potential to be happy and independent, or happy and in a relationship.

For most working class men, they prefer seeing a happy woman to an unhappy one. They would go out of their way to make an unhappy woman happy. But of course, because of the feminist legislation, it is socially unacceptable for men to seem nice and do nice things for women.  By doing nice things for women you challenge the consensus , laid down by the government, that all men want to rape and beat up women.  Which individual man is going to challenge that consensus?  It would seem odd.  It would cause anxiety that you were going against what society expects of a man.  Far easier for men o go along with what the government's low expectations of them.  Hence the rise in rape and domestic violence since the introduction of feminist legislation regarding sexual harassment, equality, rape in marriage, and domestic violence.

So, I am against devising policy on the basis of gender.