Cis-Hetero-Misogyny Online

Abstract

This article identifies five genres of anti-queer hate speech found in The Australian’s Facebook comments sections, exposing and analyzing the ways in which such comments are used to derogate cisgender and (often) heterosexual women. One may be tempted to think of cis-het women as third-party victims of queerphobia; however, this article argues that these genres of anti-queer speech are, in fact, misogynistic. Specifically, it argues that these are instances of cis-hetero-misogynistic hate speech. Cis-hetero-misogyny functions as the “law enforcement branch” of a cis-hetero-patriarchal gender order. Given the existence of such an order, it is clear that cis-het women’s liberation is inextricable from queer liberation (and vice versa). This article argues that to facilitate allyship and challenge this gender order—the order that elicits such hate speech acts—we need an epistemological revolution in the way we recognize and re-cognize human difference.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The term ‘cisgender’ refers to those whose gender identity is ‘on the same side’ as the designation of sex/gender at birth (Aultman, in Currah et. al. 2014, 61).

  2. 2.

    This article adopts Richardson-Self’s (2018b) stance that all misogynistic speech is hate speech. Thus, derivatively, cis-hetero-misogynistic speech also constitutes hate speech. It also takes for granted that hate speech should be regulated.

  3. 3.

    Note that I capitalize ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ to signal the concept as figured under cis-hetero-patriarchy.

  4. 4.

    Race likely plays a role in the missexing of Wong, Williams, and Obama. However, race is not a determining factor in such treatment, for the Liberal Senator for South Australia Lucy Gichuhi and Federal Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi both faced racism and classic misogyny in this period, but not cis-hetero-misogynistic comments.

References

  1. Baltzly D (2003) Peripatetic perversions: a neo-Aristotelian account of the nature of sexual perversion. Monist 86:3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bannister J (2008) It’s not what you say but the way that you say it: Australian hate speech laws and the exemption of ‘reasonable’ expression. Fla State Univ Law Rev 36:23–40

    Google Scholar 

  3. Beauvoir S de (1949 [2009]). The second sex. Trans: Borde C, Malovany-Chevallier S. London: Vintage Books

  4. Brown A (2017a) What is hate speech? Part I: the myth of hate. Law Philos 36:419–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown A (2017b) What is so special about online (as compared to offline) hate speech? Ethnicities 18:297–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Calhoun C (2000) Feminism, the family, and the politics of the closet: lesbian and gay displacement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  7. Currah P, Stryker S, Galarte FJ (eds) (2014) Postposttranssexual: key concepts for a 21st century transgender studies. TSQ 1–2:19–272

  8. Facebook Community Standards (2018) 12. Hate Speech. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/hate_speech/. Accessed 7 December 2018

  9. Facebook Newsroom (2017) Stats. Facebook. https://newsroom.fb.com/company-info/. Accessed 1 March 2018

  10. Gatens M (1991) Feminism and philosophy: perspectives on difference and equality. Contemp Political Theory. Polity Press, Cambridge

  11. Gatens M (2004) Can human rights accommodate women’s rights? Towards an embodied account of social norms, social meaning, and cultural change. Contemporary Political Theory 3:275–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gelber K (2019) Differentiating hate speech: a systemic discrimination approach. Crit Rev Int Soc Pol Phil:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2019.1576006

  13. Grosz E (1989) Sexual subversions: three French feminists. Allen & Unwin, St Leonards

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hooks B (2015) Feminist theory: from margin to center. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hunt S (2018) Inside the war memorial. In: Eades Q, Vivienne S (eds) Going postal: more than ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Brow Books, Australia, pp 134–143

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jay N (1981) Gender and dichotomy. Fem Stud 7:38–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Langton R (2012) Beyond belief: pragmatics in hate speech and pornography. In: Maitra I, McGowan MK (eds) Speech and harm: controversies over free speech. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 72–93

    Google Scholar 

  18. Manne K (2018) Down girl: the logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mantilla K (2013) Gendertrolling: misogyny adapts to new media. Fem Stud 39:563–570

    Google Scholar 

  20. Moraga C (1998) La Güera. In: Anderson M, Collins PH (eds) Race, class, and gender: an anthology. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, pp 26–33

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rich A (1980) Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs 5:631–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Richardson-Self L (2015) Justifying same-sex marriage: a philosophical investigation. Rowman & Littlefield International, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. Richardson-Self L (2018a) Same-sex marriage and the ‘no’ campaign. Humanities Australia 9:32–39

    Google Scholar 

  24. Richardson-Self L (2018b) Woman-hating: on misogyny, sexism, and hate speech. Hypatia: a journal of feminist philosophy 33:256–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Roy Morgan Research Institute (2017) Sydney Morning Herald is still Australia’s most widely read masthead and Australians continue to embrace the shift to digital news. Finding No. 7306. http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7306-roy-morgan-australian-newspaperreadership-june-2017-201708101543. Accessed 1 March 2018

  26. Scharff C (2012) Repudiating feminism: young women in a neoliberal world. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  27. Valdes F (1996) Unpacking hetero-patriarchy: tracing the conflation of sex, gender & sexual orientation to its origins. Yale J Law Humanit 8:161–211

    Google Scholar 

  28. Waldron J (2012) The harm in hate speech. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Richardson-Self.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richardson-Self, L. Cis-Hetero-Misogyny Online. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 22, 573–587 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-10019-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Online Misogyny
  • Hate Speech
  • Heterosexism
  • Cisgenderism
  • Feminism