fek: Maybe the reason the masthead there’s...

fek:

Maybe the reason the masthead there’s devoid of women is because of the scrutiny they’ve recieved since the post Spiers/Coen/Oxfeld area (when “early” adopters were reading blogs).

Remember: Gould, Shafrir, Shnayerson and McClear. The reception they got, often regardless of what they wrote, was visably different - from management, readers, and other media outlets - than anything the boys ever caught. This goes without mentioning the fact that Coen got some shit email from the same dude every day she worked there, each one as bad (if not worse) than the last, so maybe it was always there: insecure internet nerds taking out their Freudian shortcomings on girls who were smarter, sharper, funnier, witter than them. And honestly: generally out of their league.

This is a recurring conversation every time Gawker hires female writers. I’m not sure that women get more shit on the web, they just get a different kind of shit. Pre-Gawker, I had a personal blog that was mostly about politics and finance, and had a plain, navy blue design. If you clicked on an “about” link, it had my name, but most people didn’t bother to do that. As a result, a lot of the people who emailed me assumed I was a guy.

The tone of those emails was totally different from the hate mail I got when people knew I was female. It wasn’t nicer, but the people who thought I was a dude were more likely to respond to my argument. In the hate mail from people who knew I wasn’t, there was a small creepy segment of correspondents (always men) who would attack me sexually, usually suggesting simultaneously that I was a slut and that no one wanted to fuck me (even though no one wanting to fuck me would logically make it rather difficult to be a slut—but these were not exactly people whose logical facilities were impressive.) At the time there were no photos of me anywhere on the Internet, and I never wrote about my personal relationships. It was enough just to know that I was female and attack on that basis. I sort of assume this happens because there’s a certain segment of the male population that thinks the worst, most hurtful thing you can say about a woman is that she’s not sexually appealing.

If your self-esteem is entirely wrapped up in your sex appeal, i suppose it could be hurtful, but for me, it always seemed like a very out-of-left-field critique, neither here nor there. (I made a comment about liquidation preferences in early stage deals, and my attractiveness or lack thereof is relevant how exactly?) And a bit strange, as I usually assume people think of me (and each other) asexually online—a disembodied voice that has a certain viewpoint and writing style. It’s also weird to think that total strangers assume you would care about what they think of you sexually. (I suppose if I were a sex writer, it might be relevant. But as far as I can tell, I can look like Jabba the Hutt after a bender—and sometimes do—and people still read my writing if it’s compelling.)

Anyway, it’s just something you have to deal with if you’re not a dude. And by “deal with”, I mean ignore.

That said, if people are actually responding to what you’re writing and not just attacking you personally, there’s nothing wrong with responding back. Sometimes it’s actually enjoyable to respond to hate mail.

Source natashavc