CW: This story discusses sexual assault and online harassment and hate. Take care when reading.
I got my first death threat online in 2011. I had written a personal essay about an experience of sexual assault and was immediately bombarded with hate messages. People called for me to be hanged, beaten in the town square and sterilized.
Online harassment has gotten exponentially worse in the last decade or so, especially for women. Donald Trump’s election in 2016 amped it up, as did Elon Musk’s recent acquisition of Twitter.
So it is terrific timing for the English release of Backlash: Misogyny in the Digital Age. The documentary was a smash hit in Quebec when the French version dropped last fall. In the film, Montreal-based filmmakers Lea Clermont-Dion and Guylaine Maroist look at the rise of misogyny in online spaces through case studies of women from around the world – from high-profile politicians in Italy and the U.S. to a Montreal elementary school teacher. It is an unflinching, at-times difficult-to-watch, dive into the reality of being a woman in a misogynist world.
A major strength of the film is that it shows the real-life consequences of online harassment. One of the women profiled is Kiah Morris, a Black community advocate from Chicago who was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives in 2014. Racist and misogynist constituents emboldened by the Trump campaign targeted Morris online when she sought re-election. The vitriol she received leapt off the screen — her home was defaced and even broken into. Despite repeated pleas for police to act, she was told that the harassing messages were unpleasant but ultimately, not criminal. In a moment of rich irony, a press conference Morris hosted to announce that police would not be prosecuting her harassers was forced to end abruptly when the alleged ringleader of her harassment showed up.
Want to read more from Broadview? Consider subscribing to one of our newsletters.
Victims of online harassment are repeatedly told that what happens online is not real and to just log off if you don’t like it. Backlash shows, in painful detail, how it is both profoundly unfair to censor women and ultimately futile because the misogynists who want to harm us will do so by any means necessary.
Kiah Morris resigned from politics because of the harassment she experienced. Rehtaeh Parsons ended her life.
More on Broadview:
- More than 30 years after École Polytechnique, the fight against misogyny is no less urgent
- Canadians like to think we’re not misogynistic. But we are.
- I was devoted to Mars Hill Church pastor Mark Driscoll’s sermons — now I’m a proud feminist
The Nova Scotia teen was the subject of vicious harassment when a photo of her being assaulted at a party in 2011 was circulated through her small community. Parsons’s family contacted police, who did not lay any charges at the time. Backlash features powerful interviews with Glen Canning, Parsons’s father, who now gives presentations to youth in the hope of sparing other young women his daughter’s pain.
The documentary feels like an avalanche of despair, with story after story highlighting women being threatened, harassed and intimidated by men online. The filmmakers also chose not to censor any of the hateful messages.
And therein lies the central question I was left with after watching Backlash. Does repeating our threats and laying out our trauma change anything? Will telling our stories ever make a difference or are we simply retraumatizing ourselves?
Backlash does not answer this question, but in fairness, doing so was never their mission. Nevertheless, I hope that in reaching a wider audience with this English version, the film will spark a necessary discussion about solutions. As Morris says in one of the most poignant parts of the documentary, “The online world is a reflection of the conversations that used to happen behind closed doors.”
The internet is here to stay and misogyny will be too unless we commit to action.
***
Julie S. Lalonde is a women’s rights advocate, public educator and media commentator based in Ottawa.
We hope you found this Broadview article engaging.
Our team is working hard to bring you more independent, award-winning journalism. But Broadview is a nonprofit and these are tough times for magazines. Please consider supporting our work. There are a number of ways to do so:
- Subscribe to our magazine and you’ll receive intelligent, timely stories and perspectives delivered to your home 8 times a year.
- Donate to our Friends Fund.
- Give the gift of Broadview to someone special in your life and make a difference!
Thank you for being such wonderful readers.
Jocelyn Bell
Editor/Publisher
Comments
Debra L Leedham says:
This culture is experiencing a reversal: whereas people used to organize to fight for social justice, we are now seeing people organize to fight for individual freedoms regardless of what is socially just. The component of society who still believes in social justice, now waits politely for hateful organizers to disperse. Individuals who suffer at the hands of hate, either have to address their own issues themselves, or withdraw to sit politely on the sidelines, waiting for hate to disperse. Unless everyone in our culture can learn how to act for social justice, some of us will have to cultivate patience, praying that justice will ultimately triumph [which will happen under God's direction].
Rev. Mary-Margaret Boone says:
I am not sure where else to express this but women's issues draw my attention but I usually just get upset and don't respond but a recent headline from Global news really incensed me to respond to their headline - is Breastfeeding Dangerous? The article highlighted a drug to help women who had difficulty breastfeeding. So Breastfeeding is not dangerous but this drug could be. It was a completely misdirected headline. Why wasn't the headline directed at the lack of total concern and testing by the drug company, who was not even named in the article. It reminded me of the Nestle campaign to get women in developing and third world nations to use formula for 'healthier' babies rather than using the natural and free technique of breastfeeding. I know that not everyone can breastfeed theri children but to encourage a route that is not free and supported by a multinational company is unconscionable. So is highlighting breastfeeding as dangerous as opposed to highlighting the drug that creates the danger.