So Alexander Ryking is a Tumblr blogger and one of Tumblr’s community “editors” for politics. He thinks of himself as a liberal.
He is also a raging misogynist who regularly calls women “cunts” and tells feminists to “kill yourselves you feminazi twats.”
In recent days he’s turned his douchebag-o-meter up to 11. As a result, there’s now a petition up on Change.org to have him removed as a politics editor on Tumblr. It’s already gotten more than 3000 signatures, with several hundred new signatures added in the time it’s taken me to write this post.
Here’s unknowable woman, a frequent target of his cyber-wrath, with more details on his recent meltdown. (Read the post on her Tumblr blog for links to the evidence of his douchebaggery.)
Alexander Ryking, who has a history of attempting to silence women bloggers (he told Jess of STFUConservatives and the other “feminazis” to “go kill themselves” several months ago, and has also been rude to women of color but I haven’t been on Tumblr long enough to have personally witnessed that), defended The Amazing’s Atheist’s violent rape threats on Reddit by tagging his posts with “I support TAA.”
I and many, many other Tumblr users were disgusted by this, so we decided to tag our criticisms of Ryking that night with “Ryking’s banana republic”—a reference to his co-opting of [social justice] concepts, NOT a homophobic dig, and the person who coined it was a queer man anyway. Someone also wrote a few jokingly romantic lines about Ryking’s blind defense of TAA and new atheism, and Ryking interpreted this as homophobic and misandric…it wasn’t, but because I reblogged it, Ryking insists that I am now a homophobe, which is hilarious given my own sexual identity but whatever.
We also responded to some of his posts with pictures of extreme close-ups of our eyes.
Seriously. That is what this guy is calling “abuse.”
We did NOT threaten him, make personal attacks against his sexuality, tell him to go kill himself, send him rude messages, or commit any other acts that could reasonably be interpreted as the “cyberbullying” Ryking claims it is. I did temporarily change my URL to rykingsbananarepublic and I make no apologies for that. Why should I? Why shouldn’t a group of feminists and their allies be allowed to respond creatively to misogyny? The only actual cyberbullying that has taken place was TAA’s initial rape threats on Reddit; I wouldn’t even go so far as to claim Ryking’s tweets to me and other Twitter users are cyberbullying, though I leave it up to the other people who were insulted by him to label their experiences as bullying or not.
Anyway, a few nights later, I tweeted something in defense of Whitney Houston’s legacy, and suddenly there was Ryking going ballistic. He found me on Twitter, called me a cunt right off the bat, and insisted that I claimed Whitney Houston’s death was “more important than the death of 5,000 Syrians” (I didn’t! Here is what I actually said!). I had never exchanged tweets with this man before, and was confused about his sudden interest in my thoughts about Whitney Houston and Syria. Naturally, I responded, told him how wrong he was, and the next day I screencapped some of the things he said and posted them … I never expected that post to get the amount of notes it did, but I think that just goes to show how widespread the dislike for him is.
Ryking, for his part, has responded to the widespread criticism by striking the pose of a victim, and pretending that it is somehow all related to race. Apparently, the evil feminazis are impugning his white manhood, though he’s not white.
So-called feminists have subjected me to white-bashing comments (even though I’m Hispanic) and sexist attacks impugning my manhood (slash-fiction scenes featuring me and heterosexual men; being called faggot; being told to man-up; insults about my body;) by people who don’t realize I’m gay. After nearly two decades online, I learned early on that when you’re attacked, you defend yourself by attacking right back and just as viciously, if not more so. And that’s what exactly what I’ve done. …
What’s really at issue here is not my rude behavior but that you and others like you want to punish any man who refuses to conform to your rancid, misandrist orthodoxy by discounting everything he says and using his gender and race as the excuse for doing so. …
You don’t want me stripped of my editorial privilege based on my behavior but because I reject your sick, bigoted, misandrist (per)version of feminism.
Yep, apparently the dude who loves to call women “cunts” is the final arbiter of what is and what isn’t “true feminism.” Who knew?
I signed the petition. How about you?
Right, Dracula, I’d agree with that, but frankly I do think that oppression based on failing to live up the masculine ideal is misandry- it’s hatred of a certain kind of man. Ladies, if you want to call hatred for outspoken women, feminist women, or whatever misogyny, you’ve got to acknowledge the other side of the coin here.
“There is also the very real issue of men being mistreated, not for being men, but for failing to conform to society’s standards of masculinity.”
One of my biggest issues with the MRM is that they don’t give a shit about those men.
Just to be clear, the comment about gender non-conformity was just meant to be an example of an issue that effects men, not an example of misandry.
One of my biggest issues with the MRM is that they don’t give a shit about those men.
You and me both.
LET’S SWITCH GEARS AGAIN. IT’S INDIE POP TIME
@Nathan (the first comment):
See, I haven’t really seen much that show that men are not trusted around children. Mostly its been various MRAs complaining that they would be looked at as pedophiles if they hung around kids, all hypothetical or assertions. The idea that men make poor parents strikes me as rooted in the idea that mothers are the ones that need to take care of the children, and ties into the gender-role thing that you call misandry.
If that’s your definition, then sure; misandry exists. But it’s kind of a trivial victory if you are trying to relate it to misogyny (which would have to include criticizing women who don’t live up to female gender roles as well), and claim that misandry is just as big a problem.
michael stipe saw me at a camera obscura concert and was horrified by my dance moves. i was just trying to alleviate the dour hipster aura of a camera obscura concert in athens, georgia.
they played 80s fan, which is cam ob’s best song except for forests and sands
which i dont think had been written at that point, so it’s understandable.
p.s.: all my youtube ads are in spanish now. im not sure why
@Kirby – Well, look, I’m not saying. But as a youngish someone who has worked with children in a limited capacity, the perception exists that men are incompetent (or just moreso than women), irresponsible (or just moreso than women), etc. It’s not overt, it’s subtle and insidious, but (MRAs aside) isn’t a lot of misogyny the same way? And that’s certainly not the only example of misandry that I could cite.
Again- misogyny is more of a problem, obviously. But that doesn’t mean it is acceptable to deny the reality of misandry in modern society. It exists, and tbh I think some of the people here need to get out of their theoretical armchair. Much like “covert” misogyny, it’s there if you’re willing to look for it. Most feminists, to say the least, aren’t. They’ll spend endless amounts of time analyzing pop culture or their friends or whatever for “internalized misogyny”, and yet for some reason misandry needs to be very blatant for them to recognize it. That’s not really the way this stuff works these days.
Purity bear is back … and this time she’s racist!
Ugh. The first sentence should say “I’m not saying people immediately assume all men are pedophiles.”
I’d agree with that, but frankly I do think that oppression based on failing to live up the masculine ideal is misandry- it’s hatred of a certain kind of man.
Right. A certain kind of man. It’s not holding men as a group to be inferior, so personally, I can’t qualify that as misandry. Doesn’t make sense.
Drunk Sharculese does nothing by half measures.
I do think that oppression based on failing to live up the masculine ideal is misandry- it’s hatred of a certain kind of man.
But it’s hatred of men who display female traits. The implication is still that being male with traditionally masculine traits is superior.
Men with female traits are inferior–>female traits are inferior–>females are inferior–>misogyny
@nathan:
“Well, look, I’m not saying. But as a youngish someone who has worked with children in a limited capacity, the perception exists that men are incompetent (or just moreso than women), irresponsible (or just moreso than women), etc.”
Like I said, probably comes from gender stereotypes rather than anything else. It’s like how male nurses are looked down upon. It’s considered woman’s work.
Is it bias against men? Obviously.
Is it something the MRM would consider championing? Nope.
“Again- misogyny is more of a problem, obviously. But that doesn’t mean it is acceptable to deny the reality of misandry in modern society.”
We were talking about misandry as systematic oppression, not as “some people are prejudiced against men out there.” Something distinct from gender roles, which affect both men and women (and the solution to which “feminizes” men and “masculinizes” women).
“Most feminists, to say the least, aren’t. They’ll spend endless amounts of time analyzing pop culture or their friends or whatever for “internalized misogyny”, and yet for some reason misandry needs to be very blatant for them to recognize it.”
You should try actually talking to some feminists (like you are right now) rather than putting words in their mouth. Then you can see for yourself what they do and don’t do.
The contempt society displays towards certain kinds of men that we’re discussing isn’t misandry, it’s sexism, and sometimes homophobia. Society likes a certain, different kind of man just fine – society has contempt for pretty much every kind of woman. It’s not the same, and trying to pretend that it is makes you look very silly.
There’s no need to draw false equivalencies in order to address the bad attitudes that exist towards certain groups of men.
Learnt a new word today, to cover both misogyny & homophobia & “real men” – femmephobia.
@Kirby- So, by your logic, a woman in the corporate world, dealing with prejudice- that is not misogyny? The alleged glass ceiling? You’ve just invalidated a whole lot of feminist theory.
Like I said, I don’t accept that “oppression” is some kind of blanket term- *especially* in regards to gender. That’s simplistic in the extreme. There is a cultural- yes, an institutional- perception that men are dangerous, especially around children, and they are treated accordingly. That is oppression.
As to your last point, I’ve read quite of bit of modern feminist writing. Are you saying they do not analyze our culture? Pretty bold statement.
Femmephobia even happens in the lesbian community. It’s everywhere, honestly.
well, i am half shark and half hercules…
i dont do half measures sober either, tho
Cassandra, that’s ridiculous. There is sure as hell a kind of woman that society likes. Would this hypothetical ideal woman still face a level of misogyny? Of course. But not nearly as much as other women.
By your logic, unless you’re willing to invalidate any sort of misogyny that an “ideal woman” would *not experience*, you basically have to accept the reality of misandry in that sense
This leads us to the conclusion:
Hatred of fat women? Not misogyny, because it’s just a certain type of woman (fat women) and not “holding women as a group to be inferior.”
Prejudice in the corporate world? Not misogyny, because it’s just a certain type of woman (career women) and not “holding women as a group to be inferior.”
Thanks for proving that you don’t know what you’re talking about, Nathan. There are no women who are not affected by misogyny. It hurts some more than others, sure, but the actual breakdown in terms of who it hurts and why isn’t as simple as you seem to think it is. Even the most approved-of women are heavily affected by misogyny.
You may have read lots of feminist books, but you obviously didn’t understand them.
There is sure as hell a kind of woman that society likes.
Yep. Just as there’s a kind of man society likes, speaking very broadly, of course. Thing is, the ideal woman is still held to be inferior to the ideal man.