Feminists

and that the perv ought to be sitting in a cell all alone for the next 50 years goes without saying. That stuff's not even up for debate. The misogyny issue arises in the treatment SHE received for HIS actions. And yes, it is a misogyny issue and it has nothing to do with the onset of puberty or the normal sexual interests that arise with puberty. You said it yourself:

Bingo! It becomes even clearer with the later issue of sexual activity with a guy who had a girlfriend- and she took a physical beating for that one. The guy, on the other hand, was not only not condemned for HIS actions (his relationship was HIS responsibility, not Amanda's), but was apparently given a pass by the girlfriend since he showed up with her for that beating. If you want to explain how there's not a massive double standard in all of this, go ahead, but I'll probably laugh at you.

We live in a society that still bases the worth of a female on her appearance, with standards for that appearance that are impossible to meet. This is what an insecure young girl is going to worry most about, no matter what the problems in her life actually are, because this is the standard that our media-driven society sets- no matter what your problems are, they would all be solved if you were only more perfect, more beautiful. Everyone would like you, everyone would be your friend, if you just were thinner or your breasts were bigger/smaller or your nose was more straight or your hair would just curl or your skin never had a zit or pores... That's how predators like the one that got to Amanda are able to operate- any insecure young girl is going to feel inadequate and ashamed of her body, so it's not that difficult to talk her into showing more than she should by telling her how beautiful that "imperfect" body is. The internet has made access easier, true, but you really think this stuff didn't happen back in the days of Polaroids? Or before? The Catholic Church built a highly profitable industry around stealing the babies from young, unmarried girls that got caught in that trap and got pregnant, and it lasted for generations.

And married to that impossibly high standard of physical beauty, which could probably be dealt with by itself, is the old, tired, worn-out madonna/whore complex that waits quietly in the wings until you DO develop those lovely sexual features, then condemns you for using them. THIS is what got Amanda in the end- not just showing her breasts, but the firestorm of slut-shame that resulted from it. Men do not have a similar standard. We just had a thread recently on a schoolteacher being fired because of underwear modeling she'd done 17 years earlier- compare that to the fate of a man who posed nude in his 20's:



Meet Senator Scott Brown. That behavior, which condemns a woman for displaying the same sexuality it demands that she have yet applauds a man for the same action, is not biological behavior. It's cultural. Were it not for that sad old madonna/whore complex that we've raised our children on, combined with a cultural delight in tormenting those we consider "lesser" or "different", that picture wouldn't have been such an issue with her peers.

You could wipe out the Internet tomorrow and those issues would still be a problem, because that is how our society is structured. Female sexuality is still condemned, even in one as young as Amanda was, even if it's through no fault of her own. This is not the fault of the Internet, but of the attitude her torturers were raised on.

And the mindset doesn't develop in a vacuum. Babies don't look at other babies with no shirt on and think "what a slut!". We teach our daughters to be ashamed of their sexuality, and to shame other girls for theirs. You yourself have chosen to place the blame on her parents for allowing her Internet access, yet the kids who bullied and beat her also had parents and they are not mentioned-neither are the school officials who knew this was going on. You've fallen into the same trap that the article discusses; while you're progressive enough not to blame a 12 year old child, you've chosen to aim for the next closest target rather than place that blame where it belongs. Let that one sink in for a minute. That's what we're talking about, that's what the article is talking about. The immediate inclination is to place at least some kind of blame on the victim, or those in charge of the victim, instead of the people who committed the crimes. Why do you suppose that is?

That's what we mean by misogyny.

I am once again posting exhausted when I know I shouldn't be, so I can't gauge how much sense I'm making. Hopefully at least some. Anything that wasn't clear can be fixed in the morning.