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?
Cassandra, the terminology seems pretty simple to be. Misogyny = institutional contempt for women. (And remember, this isn’t even the most agreed-upon definition, it’s the feminist one, but I’ll work with it here). There is a level of institutional contempt for men as well. The two are not mutually exclusive. I do not accept that oppression is some black-and-white blanket phenomenon, especially with gender. That’s simplistic in the extreme.
Dracula, I don’t agree the assumption that women are universally considered to be “the inferior gender”. This goes back to my first post. Men are held to be superior in certain spheres, women in others- and this serves as the springboard for most misogyny and misandry in our society. Men have (or had, in the past) things quantitatively “better”, but there were and are areas where they were and are considered not adept. It’s pretty simple.
@Kirbywarp
Yeah I read an article in the NYT about that too. Finally I though, MRAs will shut up, more women will die now so they’ll be happy.
NOPE. Read the article on AVfM. Wah wah no more boys club in the military anymore!
I suppose the terminology would seem pretty simple if instead of trying to understand it you just stuck your metaphorical fingers in your ears and went “la la, I can’t hear you, I prefer my imaginary version of reality so I’m going to pretend it’s true instead”.
You’re so out of your depth here it’s kind of pitiful.
In terms of the military issue, I can see why MRAs are opposing it. If and when women are allowed into combat arms and flourish there that just removes one of the planks of which their little ship of prejudiced bullshit is built. It’s going to be even harder to argue that women are incompetent by nature once that happens.
Basically it’s another sign that things aren’t going their way, societally speaking, so of course they don’t like it.
@Quackers:
Called it. ^_^
‘_’
-_-
I smell lots and lots of goal-post shifting…
Someone needs to make a gif of goal posts dancing. I wish I had the skills necessary to do it!
Cassandra, until you can engage the topic instead of making lofty sarcastic remarks, you’re just going to make yourself look like a pompous ass. If you can’t be arsed to type so much shit out, you’re free to not participate.
The fact is I’m right. That is the feminist, or “social justice” definition of misogyny, and amongst some circles sexism as well. And even under the feminist definition, misandry is a thing.
“Cassandra, until you can engage the topic instead of making lofty sarcastic remarks, you’re just going to make yourself look like a pompous ass.”
Again with the lulz.
I don’t engage seriously with people who don’t understand the terms that they’re using. Dracula already very patiently explained your underlying conceptual problem. If you still don’t get it, oh well, not my problem.
Dracula, I don’t agree the assumption that women are universally considered to be “the inferior gender”. This goes back to my first post. Men are held to be superior in certain spheres, women in others-
Yeah, for this to work you kinda have to ignore the fact those spheres that women are held to be superior in, are systematically devalued and thought of inferior to the spheres men are held to be superior in.
To say that the perception of men as predators is not misandrist is false. To say that implicit discouragement from certain job careers based on gender is not misandrist is false. To say the concept of male disposability is not misandrist is false. These are all institutional, these are all harmful to men. Misandry is simply there, if you’d care to open your eyes.
Erasing misandry, and the victims of said misandry, well, it’s offensive, and it’s callous, and it’s petty politics that reflect privileged white girls’ desire to claim an “oppression”. It’s simply not that simple, and most people can sense this, and that is part of the reason feminism has inspired such a backlash.
@Nathan:
I feel like we need to start over at this point, because what we have is a flurry of topic changes, assertions, and ignorance that has led to a meaningless conclusion. You say “misandry is a thing?” What do you mean by misandry? “Institutionalized contempt for men?” How have you shown that such a thing exists? You’ve just kept repeating it over and over as if it were true, then calling us blind for not seeing it.
You’ve already admitted that the idea that “men are predators” is not one that really exists, and yet that was your one example of this contempt for men. Why don’t you start over with your argument (and definitions) to reach the conclusion that “misandry is a thing,” so we can all be talking about the same thing?
Kirby, it’s damn simple. Is there institutional prejudice toward men, on some level? Are there areas of society in which men are perceived inferior; that is, given short shrift? I think the answer is pretty much obviously yes. Therefore, even going by the feminist definition, misandry is a thing.
@Nathan:
“Are there areas of society in which men are perceived inferior; that is, given short shrift? I think the answer is pretty much obviously yes.”
So… The fact that men are looked down upon for taking the roles normally ascribed to women because of an underlying belief that women are inferior… is misandry?
…………
You seriously need to do some more homework, Nathan.
BTW, just in case anyone who is not Nathan was wondering why I was being dismissive towards him right from the beginning, it’s because I could already tell that his last statements were what he was working towards. Obvious dude is obvious.
@CassandraSays:
You read much more deeply than I, then. Good show.
Either that, or you’re full of it. 😉
Months of dealing with MRALs crap have made the context cues easier to read, I think. The “lots of men have it worse than you!” rant was a pretty big clue, too.
I have much to learn, sensei. *bows*
Dracula, it is when said roles lead to more insidious assumptions like: men are dangerous around children, men are overgrown children around the home, men are incapable of changing a diaper because they’re pathetic incompetents, etc.
Women have their own prejudices to deal with, of course, but this is not what about the wimminz! time.
No one agrees with you guys- seriously. If you ask someone on the street whether men faced gendered problems, the answer is of course going to be yes. Because they do. Different problems that women, but problems. Again- get off your high horse. You’re not a martyr. Cassandra’s a privileged white girl who I’m sure has had an incredibly easy life, who has probably had a fine relationship and social history, and now has the nerve to sit and talk about how men are never devalued? Fuck that, and screw you.
I guess you learn faster when the dudes in question tend to flip their shit at you on a regular basis. All women are very privileged in comparison to these guys, you know.
Actually, is it MRAL? Has David checked the IP?
I’ve become… agitated, as Jeff Winger would say. This has not been a productive conversation. I regret getting involved, frankly. Suffice to say I disagree with your guys’ position, I think it’s ridiculous, and I’m fairly sure most people would agree with me. But I’ll let you all be.
And right on schedule, as predicted, all the other stuff about men in childcare, etc, was just a smokescreen for the real grievance, ie. why won’t girls date me?
Nathan, I’m done with this shit. I have, in fact, acknowledged that men face prejudice. I have also acknowledged that men don’t conform to their expected roles often suffer for. I’VE FUCKING SUFFERED FOR IT. All you’re doing is advocating for the acceptance of definitions that make no sense.
Unless you have an actual logical argument that doesn’t contradict itself at every turn, then I’m finished with this discussion. Stop wasting my time.
And if you aren’t MRAL, I will be very surprised. Red flag went off as soon as “male disposability” came up. That and the fixation on Cassandra as some sort of spoiled princess.