Feminist Cultists and the myth of the ‘Broad Church’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012
One of the most common reactions to my criticisms of feminism in recent years has been along the lines of: ‘feminism is a broad church, there are many different perspectives within it. Don’t taint us all with the same brush!’
It is in my view, a way of trying to stamp on dissent. To pull the rug from under any serious challenge to the dogma. And often it works.
Roz Kaveney’s article in the Guardian this week is a case in point. She is distancing herself and feminism in general from the ‘cultist’ behaviour of the people organising the #radfem2012 conference in July. Their stipulation that trans women are not welcome at the event has been noted as exclusionary and plain wrong.
Roz writes:
‘There are many debates within feminism, and the women’s movement ought not to be a monolith of orthodoxy. There are, for example, legitimate arguments on both sides of discussion of sex work – whether the stress should be placed on prohibition or harm reduction, say. But such a debate will not be allowed at RadFem2012. I hate to say this of other feminists, but aspects of their feminism – the anti-intellectualism, emphasis on innate knowledge, fetishisation of tiny ideological differences, heresy hunting, conspiracy theories, rhetorical use of images of disgust, talk of stabs in the back and romantic apocalypticism – smack less of feminism than of a cult.’
My retort to her is simple. Try leaving this ‘broad church’ and you might find it displays the exact qualities of a ‘cult’ you describe above.
We have been having a discussion about what it is like to be cast as a ‘heretic’ for being women daring to reject feminism as a dogma at QRG blog:
http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/feminist-witch-hunts/
The radfems are in some ways only explicitly stating what ‘reasonable’ feminists express more subtly. That the supposed ‘enemies’ of the ‘women’s movement’ are actually …yes… men.
I have not seen one feminist in all the furore over this #radfem2012 ‘bigoted’ conference, suggest that maybe it should also be open to men delegates. In 2012. I suppose that feminists, radical, liberal, Tory or other, are all really good old fashioned girls at heart. Keeping the old misandrous traditions alive.
Well then fuck ‘em. Sheila’s not my sister. Neither is Julie. Neither is Suzanne. And neither, though it saddens me to say it, is Roz.*
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/02/09/misandry-the-acceptable-prejudice/
*Roz Kaveney blocked me on twitter a while back for…arguing about feminism.
A comedy of leftisms – guest post by @henrymcg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/21/shakespeare-universal-cultural-imperialism
George Bernard Shaw didn’t think much of the plays of William Shakespeare, and wrote reams of nonsense, I seem to recall, explaining why he himself was the greater playwright. His plays had some merit. He is still remembered, though the Bard looks like outlasting him.
A writer I’d never heard of before – damn my ignorance – named Emer O’Toole (which looks like an anagram of EE, MORE LOOT, or possibly MOLE OOT ‘ERE) has now given us her own criticism of Shakespeare, and it’s classic Guardian fare. Here is one insightful sentence.
“Shakespeare is full of classism, sexism, racism and defunct social mores”
Now the implication here seems to be that for a play (even one written in 1597 for goodness sake?) to be worth watching, it should conform to the current, 2012 leftist/progressive mindset. Sound like a good evening at the theatre?
In fact how many classic works of fiction would be allowed if we so harshly judged them? I believe there are quite a few ‘defunct social mores’ lurking about in the works of Jane Austen, so she’ll probably have to go as well. A gentleman being “in search of a wife” sounds dangerously as though it might hinder somebody’s understanding of their own sexuality by imposing outdated heteronormative etc etc…you get the idea.
Emer O’Toole may not have heard the old truism: the past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. She seems unaware that popular moralistic viewpoints can be rather ephemeral. In fact it shows ridiculous hubris to look back through time and condescendingly criticise people for not having 21st century Guardian-reader attitudes. It is quite possible that if her piece on Shakespeare is remembered at all, it will inadvertently cause a good deal of laughter 50 years from now.
Can you imagine Benjamin Franklin turning to Thomas Jefferson and saying “Nice Declaration of Independence, dude. But I’m not sure you show enough awareness of your privilege as a member of the patriarchy”? And do we think any the less of him because he did not say that?
But I fear Ms O’Toole is only getting started.
“So where has this idea that Shakespeare is ‘universal’ come from? Why do people the world over study and perform Shakespeare? Colonialism. That’s where, and that’s why. Shakespeare was a powerful tool of empire, transported to foreign climes along with the doctrine of European cultural supremacy”
Yep. That’s it! People round the world have been told by a non-Guardian-reader what they should value, and the idiots fell for it! They didn’t enjoy Shakespeare’s extraordinary use of language, nor the stories of love, betrayal, and power. Not a bit of it! We’ve all been brainwashed, hoodwinked by those pesky imperialists.
For O’Toole has revealed that, once again ‘imperialism’ is the evil spirit behind Shakespeare’s success. This is a Guardian leitmotif. Once you’ve linked a person or idea with imperialism, the stink will never truly rub off. ‘Imperialism’ is the word our friends at that newspaper toss in when they want us to be absolutely clear that someone is nasty, evil, and bad.
Along with the talk of imperialism, there’s a whiff of leftist anti-patriotism, another theme that we see repeatedly in the Guardian. The message is repeated over and over: patriotism means imperialism. We are told that it is never distinguishable from the xenophobia of the BNP, even nazi-ism. And far from being only the ravings of a bunch of sillies in the Graun, this attitude has in fact had a large influence, especially in education.
There are some excellent comments to this effect under a post in David Thompson’s blog about this piece (http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2012/05/elsewhere-63.html). As the blog-owner says:
“Fostering disaffection with – and alienation from – British history (warts and all) doesn’t seem likely to make anyone feel a sense of citizenship, or shared values, or even welcome.”
The Guardian continues to do its best to stimulate the crippling self-doubt that pervades the British identity – all in the name of combatting a kind of colonialist superiority that in reality died many decades ago.
This is by Joe Paterson ( @thejoepaterson ):
http://someotherramblings.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/why-does-music-seem-unable-to-respect-women/
In my place of work (once it has closed to the public), we inevitably listen to the monotonous tones of a radio station that despite not being based in the CAPITAL city, decides to pretend that it is, so names itself thus.
This radio station plays the same playlist on a seemingly unshuffled from week-to-week basis, and it did not take me long to start listening to what all the ‘rappers’ and ‘singers’ were talking about.
The vast majority of the time: Women.
Now this in itself is obviously not a bad thing, but like the adult style comedy hidden underneath a seemingly innocent Disney film, there’s always an underlying message.
In a 2hr subjection to the so called ‘music’, I heard a few songs in particular that bothered me. One of these said songs was ‘International Love’ which appears to feature some breed of dog as the leading artist (I am of course talking about the rapper Pitbull). One of the verses in the song features the lyrics:
“In Romania, she pulled me to the side and told me “Pit, you can have me and my sister”. In Lebanon, yeah the women are bomb. And in Greece, you’ve guessed it, the women are sweet…”
“En Cuba la cosa esta dura, but the women get down, if you know what I mean…”
“In Brazil, is freaky big o’booty, and they bounce, blue, yellow, and green…”
All of this from one song, and frankly, these are some of the more respectable lyrics found in mainstream music today. Is it really any wonder why teenage girls and younger are becoming more self-conscious about their image? Is it really any wonder why many feel the need to present themselves to the opposite sex as objects?
Music videos are no better. In 99% of music videos today you will inevitably see women wearing next to nothing and bumping and grinding against the artist or fellow women, as though they were playing bumper cars. This glamorisation of acting in a slutty way only contributes more to the sexualisation of young women, and encourages young men to view women as nothing but shagging machines. Horrible, but true.
Obviously, I can’t say that this is true for every young man and women in the world, but for a great many in Western society it is.
Unfortunately, I can’t help but come to the conclusion that music will not change. ‘Shawty’ is apparently here to stay. I don’t know quite who ‘Shawty’ is, but she seems to have a lot of rapper boyfriends…
And even if a change was made, it’s not as if the general public would find Pitbull rapping about dating a girl, taking her to the park for a picnic, and not having sex before marriage as particularly entertaining.
Sometimes I despair at society.
Oh, and as a musician/songwriter, I funnily enough don’t feel compelled to mention ‘Shawty’ in any of my songs…
Is The Polari Prize Transphobic And Biphobic?
Graunwatch readers will be familiar with Paul Burston’s naff Polari Prize that I tried to enter earlier this year, with catastrophic results. Although Polari the ‘literary salon’ that Burston runs is billed as a ‘gay salon’ and he edits the ‘lesbian and gay’ section in Time Out magazine, the rules for the Polari Prize were clear. On Paul’s Blog it states that anyone can enter the prize if their first book is about the ‘queer experience’:
‘The Prize is for a first book which explores the queer experience and is open to any work of poetry, prose, fiction or non-fiction by a writer born or resident in the UK, published in English within the past twelve months [my emphasis].’
And when I entered the prize, though Paul never replied to my emails, his colleague and fellow judge Suzi Feay told me my book was eligible. I only withdrew from the prize because Paul Burston and Julie Bindel outed me, told lies about me and Mark Simpson, and caused people to harass a work colleague of mine.
The longlist for the staggering, unethical, pathetic Polari Prize is going to be announced at an event in July. BUT in the blurb, it now states the prize is only for ‘gay and lesbian literary talent’! So much for the ‘queer experience’:
‘After debuting to great acclaim last year, the Polari First Book Prize is back. This event sees the announcement of the longlist for 2012, which recognises the very best in new gay and lesbian literary talent, alongside a typically eclectic bill of queer fiction, poetry and performance at London’s ’most theatrical salon’ (The New York Times). Hosted by writer and journalist Paul Burston [emphasis mine]‘.
Of course this is no surprise to me, despite his lip-service to trans people and trans issues, Paul Burston is Gay with a capital G and has no interest in the ‘queer experience’ as these tweets show:
The attitude of Paul Burston and other elitist, separatist ‘gay and lesbian’ activists, reminds me of the recent furore over the forthcoming Radical Feminist conference in London. The twitter hashtag for the event #radfem2012 is full of both elitist separatist shit from the rad fems, who are exclusing trans women from their event, and a lot of criticism and challenges to their bigotry. An interesting comment was made on the hashtag which said:
I don’t know if the tweeter was talking about the biphobia inherent in radical feminism, or biphobia in general. But I think in general biphobia goes unnoticed and challenged all the time. It is clear to me that the Polari Prize, by advertising itself as a showcase for ‘gay and lesbian’ literary talent is excluding not only trans writers but also bisexual ones. Where is their prize? Are they assumed to not suffer any discrimination and to have a fair chance in mainstream literary competitions? ORLY?
The #radfem2012 hashtag is depressing reading, as it shows that radical feminism is full of hatred, for men, for trans women, for everyone who does not subscribe to their narrow dogma. Paul Burston in his ‘gay’ ivory tower has also demonstrated a lot of hate, mainly for me as it happens but I am sure I am not the only person he hates. He has said about me (and Mark Simpson his old ‘friend’):
And let’s not forget. Paul Burston outed me with the help of radical feminist and known transphobe Julie Bindel. Bindel also told blatant lies about me supported by Burston:
Of course, the huge irony of all this lesbian and gay elitism on the part of Burston is that once he wrote a chapter in the radical book Anti Gay, edited by Mark Simpson (1996). Simpson, though in some ways a little less radical than he used to be (aren’t we all?), stands by the principles laid out in Anti Gay. In particular he often calls out biphobia where he sees it, which is often in the gay and lesbian community.
I don’t see a huge amount of difference between the ideologies of Polari and those of #radfem2012 I do however see a difference between how people are responding to those elite and quite nasty ‘clubs’.
Metrosexual Obama – In The Guardian!
No prizes for guessing who identified Obama as a metrosexual president first: yes, Mark MetroDad Simpson. In his 2011 book, Metrosexy, he put his observation into print when he wrote:
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2012/05/15/the-perfect-mandate-obama-and-becks-and-the-media/
“A well-dressed mixed-race, polyglot male who makes the Free World wait on his gym visit every morning. A man whose looks are regularly praised – particularly by male journalists. A man who won the Democratic nomination in part because he was much prettier than his more experienced female opponent. His wife Michelle is very attractive too, of course – but in some ways Obama is the first US President to be his own First Lady.”
But it was me who first pointed out that Obama’s right wing opponents use the term ‘metrosexual’ as an insult to the president. Using Simpson’s work which has shown just how resiliant old-school machismo is in the States, I demonstrated how in some contexts, ‘metrosexual’ can be used to mean ‘pussy’, ‘fag’ or ‘girl’.
so I was not surprised to read in the Graun this week that some of Obama’s right wing opponents have devised a plan to stop him in his metrosexual tracks.
The author of the article writes:
‘Then again, the whole document is really a smoke-screen for an attack that is really only one word long. I’ll give you a hint. The creators of the plan describe Obama as the “metrosexual black Abe Lincoln”: which one of those terms, historically, is seen as a negative?’
Here is my response in the comments below the line:
‘well this is not a very useful comparison because the word ‘metrosexual’ has a MUCH shorter history than the word ‘black’. The word ‘metrosexual’ was coined in 1994 by Mark Simpson as he explained in the Guardian earlier this year:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/31/men-obsessed-bodies-male-objectification
but that history has included a lot of ‘metrophobia’ including and especially in America, where there was a ‘nervous breakdown’ over metrosexuality in the early 2000s that has continued to this day.
So which word is ‘historically’ considered negative? I’d say both ‘black’ and ‘metrosexual’!’
Mark MetroDad Simpson can thank me later for my support of his theories. Whatever happens I am pretty sure the next occupant of the White House will be metrosexual.
Victim Feminism Speaks!
I was thinking it had been a while since Suzanne Moore had written a spectacularly crass, polemic, anti-men spiel in the Graun. As that is her raison d’etre, there had to be another one on its way and there was.
The commenters below the line pretty well demolished Moore’s ‘arguments’ about men claiming status as ‘the new victims’ due to their ‘victim envy’ of women. She referred to a new book about men that the Guardian/Observer had already laid into once.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/13/men-victims-new-oppression
Regular commenter Ally Fogg (@allyfogg) asked Suzanne if she had actually read this book and got no reply. My guess is no. She was just re-hashing the Guardian/Observer ‘line’ on it.
My comment was brief but it raised an important point. I responded to this horrendous paragraph in Moore’s piece:
‘Still, we all get bamboozled with the choices women now have. Despite everyday stories of violence and abuse against women, we are now to refer to prostitution as “sex work”. I still await the dinner party where middle-class parents tell me: “Tom is doing his law conversion but even though Charlotte hasn’t done her Sats she already says she want to do sex work! We always knew she was entrepreneurial.” (my emphasis).
I said:
‘as a woman who refuses the role of ‘victim’ I find this article insulting.
How can I assert my agency with people like Ms Moore demanding that I fit into the ‘poor little victim’ box like a good little girl?
I am not a victim. And I will fight feminism all the way.
Oh. and sex work is called sex work because ‘prostitution’ takes away sex worker’s agency. They don’t want to be victims either it seems.’
There is something ironic about feminists, great believers in women’s power to ‘smash patriarchy’, turning certain groups of women into powerless victims, objects even. Sex workers, trans women, Tory feminists, women who have cosmetic surgery, women who wear too much make up, women who wear too little clothes, women who fuck too many men, they all know what it is like to be objectified and belittled by The Good Feminists.
It is actually quite a ‘patriarchal’ or ‘matriarchal’ approach to take. ‘You are a victim because I say you are, and since I have a column in the Guardian I get to have the last word on the subject’.
Except, thankfully, in the internet age, Suzanne Moore and her cronies don’t get to have the last word.
At the end of her article she mentioned how on International Women’s Day feminists on twitter silenced men critics, with the witty hashtag #whatabouttehmenz . But as Mark Simpson wrote in his article about misandry being the acceptable prejudice, this is a very sexist tactic:
‘Quiet Riot Girl has kindly brought to my attention the vogue online for dismissing anyone who suggests that men might face sexism as well as women with the retort: ‘whataboutthemenz?’ And it seems it isn’t just feminists using this school playground approach.
It’s a rather telling phrase because it tries to project the childishness of the people deploying it against the ones they want to shut up. Ironically, it also seems to depend on the ‘patriarchal’ notion of shaming the whining boy who doesn’t just sup it up ‘like a man’.’
Simpson’s work is also important in challenging the lazy white middle class ‘victim feminism’ spouted by Moore et al because he documents just how much gender roles and gender relations have changed in recent years. The metrosexual revolution he has written about is the result of a post-industrial society, where men aren’t ‘patriarchs’ anymore (if they ever were). Men have suffered huge job losses, the destruction of ‘manly’ industries such as mining and steel work. And have become ‘like women’ in how they now care much more how they look, because many of them can’t take so much pride in what they do as they might have done in the past.
Another commenter under Moore’s diatribe quoted a slightly less cliched feminist, Ros Coward. Her book Sacred Cows inspired the wrath of Beatrix Campbell who said she felt ‘betrayed’ by Coward. But sometimes ‘betraying’ the ‘sisterhood’ is the only decent honest thing to do. As the commenter at cif said:
‘From Sacred Cows by Ros Coward:
The combination of feminism and changes in the economy have shattered the easy way in which men could assume that their masculinity entitled them to a superior position. The uncertainty which men have been feeling and the effect of this on the socialization of boys show how inadequate it is to assume the all-importance of gender division, categorizing men into powerful positions and women into subordinate ones. [...] Now we have to acknowledge that gender is one among many divisions in a truly uneven and heterogeneous society. [emphasis added]
Coward wrote that in 1999. It’s odd that she did so, while all Moore manages now is to shout ‘tripe’ and claim gender trumps everything else.’
————————
Title of this piece taken from Metrodaddy Speaks! by Mark Simpson. I wish he would speak up against feminism more often.
Less Metro, More Hetero…Brad Pitt?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/fashion/fashion-blog/2012/may/10/brad-pitt-chanel-cover-girl
Brad Pitt is the ‘new cover girl’ for Chanel No. 5 the iconic (ahem) women’s perfume. According to pundits such as Jess Cartner Morley of the Guardian, this means ‘the bar has been raised for metrosexuality’.
Mark MetroDad Simpson retweeted Morley’s comment, presumably in agreement. I am not so sure. I think choosing the ‘manly’ bearded, soon-to-be married heterosexual Pitt is actually quite a safe choice for chanel.
My view is supported (from a slightly different angle) by Katie Puckrick, writing in the Guardian. She says:
‘But why Brad, and why now? Chanel Nº 5 still reigns supreme as the ‘ultimate’ perfume, the stuff even clueless Cro-Magnons can namecheck as proof that they know the score. However, the world of perfume has experienced a population explosion since Nº 5 was first introduced in 1921. With over 1,000 fragrances now launched yearly (many of them uninspiring spin-offs and celebrity cash-ins), the grande dame of the perfume counter has a harder time than ever being smelled over the din. Name brand recognition doesn’t necessarily equal sales dominance, and indeed in France, Nº 5 is currently outsold by Dior’s J’Adore.
There’s nothing like hitching one’s wagon to a star to get back on top, though, and with Brad planning to make a Mrs. Pitt out of Angelina Jolie in the near-ish future, Chanel will only benefit from the Hollywood hoopla (and rabid press interest) surrounding the wedding. A link with an A-list actor never hurts an A-list brand. Marilyn Monroe once boosted sales after an impertinent reporter asked what she wore in bed. She provocatively answered, “Chanel Nº 5″. With their latest perfume model, Chanel offers a subliminal reframing of that answer. What does the modern woman wear to bed? Brad Pitt.’
I see this appointment as part of what could turn out to be a worrying ‘retrosexual’ trend in metrosexy advertising. Brands seem to be trying to say they are Less Metro, More Hetero. Simpson’s groundbreaking theory that metrosexual men are ‘everything to themselves’ regardless of whether they are attracted to men, women or nobody, is true I believe.
But it is also dangerous. It threatens our heteronormative status quo. It suggests all men these days are a bit… gay. And the world is not ready for that news.
So, in supporting his theories, I actually disagree with Simpson about Brad Pitt and Chanel. I think the metrosexy icons who ‘raise the bar’ of metrosexuality are far more daring than him. Andrej Pejic and the XY Movement are not scared of what people think of them, of appearing ‘gay’ or ‘girly’.
They follow the metrosexual mantra of doing what they want and looking how they want, to please themselves.
Danny Dyer And Bidisha Walk Into A Bar…
GUEST POST BY REGULAR GRAUNWATCH READER, STEPHEN:
Has anyone ever mentioned the similarity between Danny Dyer and Bidisha?
It doesn’t immediately flag up and but there is this (not quite topical but it only struck me t’other day)
“You’ve got nothing to worry about, son. I’d suggest going out on a rampage with the boys, getting on the booze and smashing anything that moves. Then, when some bird falls for you, you can turn the tables and break her heart. Of course, the other option is to cut your ex’s face, and then no one will want her.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/may/05/danny-dyer-zoo-magazine
“I wouldn’t be above some impromptu castration, either. Last December German Helmut Seifert cut the knackers off the 57-year-old “boyfriend” of his 17-year-old daughter with a kitchen knife. That’s the way to do it, sir: grasp the issue at its root. Don’t telephone the man and sound him out. Just saw off his nuts. Sure as eggs is eggs, he won’t do it again, will he? See. Direct action. It works (almost) every time.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/19/bidisha-summary-justice
The only difference was that Danny got a fair bit of coverage in the Guardian for what he said (and fired because of it) but the Guardian shut the debate down, regarding Bidishas comment, else it would of developed into a full on flaming (judging by the comments).
It’s a remarkable difference of reaction, for what are two almost identical sentiments put into print.
It’s A Red Card For Basher Bindel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/29/ched-evans-fottball-culture-misogyny?INTCMP=SRCH
I had quite a football-themed weekend this weekend, even though I didn’t see any matches. On Saturday, I went to a pub in the East End in the afternoon and spent some of the time surrounded by Hammers (West Ham) fans. We had a great conversation, ranging from North London football rivalries, to the future of the Olympic stadium, to music.
The footie fans I sat with were a mix of ages, gender identities and ethnicities.
Then yesterday I noticed news of a ‘fake gay kiss’ between two footballers on the pitch having been banned by Brazilian tv. I commented that this seemed odd, as, influenced by the work of Mark Simpson, I know that football is nothing if not homoerotic. Goal celebrations usually involve kissing between players so I didn’t see why Brazilian media got so het up about it. Maybe as they simulated using tongues? (with a crafty hand over the mouth).
Finally, last night, I was alerted to an article by Julie – Basher – Bindel on ‘misogyny’ in football. This seemed to have no relation whatsoever with my other football experiences of the weekend. In fact, it seemed to have no relation to football at all, or even to reality.
Bindel used the recent Ched Evans case, where a professional footballer went down for five years for rape, much to the chagrin of his fans, to cry misogyny!
Now, I don’t think rape always or even often relates to ‘misogyny’ – sexual violence is committed by a range of people, including in same sex relationships and liaisons. It’s not just Men those beasts hurting poor innocent women. Bindel seemed to be just tacking on her usual misandry and anti-sex work campaigns onto a news story of the moment.
There are many factual inaccuracies in Bindel’s article. These include:
1) it was not just ‘male’ fans on twitter calling the young woman in the case a ‘slag’. Women fans were also supportive of Ched and rude about her.
2) comparing this to the tweeter arrested for racism against Muamba, the footballer who was in a coma recently, is done in a dishonest way. Bindel ignores the fact that the liberal twitterati were just as up in arms about the #justiceforched hashtag as they were about the Muamba incident, if not more so. She also fails to acknowledge that tweets were reported to the police and an investigation is underway. So Julie loses her game of ‘oppression olympics’ here.
3) Has the campaign against racism in football been ‘spectacularly successful’? What would Muamba say to that? Or indeed Rio Ferdinand?
4) Bindel says ‘there have been countless allegations of rape against Premier League players over the years’. This is typical Bindel-esque vagueness. Countless? I am pretty sure we have the documentation available to count exactly how many allegations of rape have been made ‘over the years’ against top players. And whilst I have not done it yet, I think the number will be relatively small. Premier league players get in the papers. But big stories do not often equate with big phenomena. It is often hype.
5) Bindel writes: ‘When footballers go to brothels, have women delivered to hotel rooms, visit lap-dancing clubs, or “harvest” local girls to line them up for group sex parties, it is not seen as evidence of misogyny.’
Well yes and no. The word ‘harvest’ is absolutely typical Bindel, turning consensual sex between men and women into some kind of slave horror film. Are lap dancing clubs ‘misogyny’? I don’t think so. And I don’t think many women who work there, by choice, think so either. As for sex work, the mythology of sport and sex work going together like a horse and carriage is well critiqued by now. The anti sex work feminists are WRONG. And if there is misogyny in the sex lives of footballers, it is always noted and decried by feminists! It is not a secret scandal unearthed by Basher Bindel alone.
6) Again, Bindel writes: ’Women who hang around hotels looking to pick up footballers are viewed as “goal-diggers” and groupies. Players view them with contempt and they are painted as slags who have no other purpose in life than to marry a rich man.’ This is just out and out rubbish. Football players often fall in love with and marry ‘groupies’ who become WAGS. These women often have successful careers of their own and a lot of respect, both within and beyond the world of football. Bindel is talking sh*t.
7) Bindel: ‘There exists a grotesque sex culture among young footballers, with “roasting” – the seduction of young women into degrading group sex in which they are passed from player to player and often filmed by the participants – a common and accepted practice.’
Apart from the issue that Bindel always glosses over – consent, these spit roasts, as Mark Simpson has pointed out, are actually all about the men. And their sexual interest in each other. Two men and one woman traditionally form a spit roast ‘team’, and as the members of the boy band Blue have admitted, often they high five each other on completing the manoeuvre. It’s homoerotic more than it is misogynist. And that is what Basher Bindel fails to tell us about football. One of the key problems in the game, that is not going away, is homophobia. I think even this can be overplayed at times. As Simpson has explained, the complexities of homoanxiety and homosexual tension in the game are many. But there are still no out gay or bisexual footballers in the UK. And the last one who came out, Justin Fashanu, later killed himself. To ignore this in a discussion of ‘misogyny’ in football is frankly ridiculous.
8) Bindel: ‘Club management appears to not give a damn about the hideous sexism and general contempt for females being displayed by many young players’. This is sheer sexist language as far as I am concerned. Calling a woman a ‘female’ as a noun is using the language of lab rats, not people. I am not ‘a female’. I am barely ‘a woman’. I find this ‘grotesque’ not spit roasts!
Why am I so angry with Julie Bindel? Is it just her misandry and her slackness with the facts? No not just that. She is one of the people who outed me a couple of months ago. And in doing so she told some lies about what I’d said to her in the past. e.g:
That experience just reminded me of her ‘tactics’ when it comes to politics. And she has committed enough fouls now, in my opinion, to be sent off.
Will the Guardian be brave enough to get rid of one of their most powerful feminasty columnists? I very much doubt it.
Gayism’s Coming Home! Guest Post by @arg1985
The gay media have been enthusing today over the new video (“Homecoming”) released by the Campaign for Equal Marriage. PinkNews describe it as “beautiful” in their headline, and gay celebs from Stephen Fry to Patrick Strudwick have been uncritical in their adulation.
Personally, I think it is only a small exaggeration to say it is so unspeakably, cringeworthily awful it has made me reconsider my support for same-sex marriage.
It seems almost futile to blog about this. If your reaction is anything like mine, no explanation of what’s so awful about it will be necessary. And if you think the video is beautiful and moving despite having actually watched it, I don’t know what I could say that could possibly be more convincing proof of the video’s awfulness than the video itself. But at the very least, I would like to register a howl of protest in the face of all the uncritical praise.
I’ll try and break it down as much as I can.
1. Union Jacks. Literally the first frame is a Union Jack, which swirls away to reveal … a happy crowd waving Union Jacks! Hurrah! God Save the Queen!
2. Our boys! Yes, the happy patriotic crowd are cheering the return of Her Majesty’s brave soldiers. If you love equality, you must love the army and British foreign policy, right?
3. Everyone is white! The casting director of Midsomer Murders apparently helped out with this ad. It’s probably no more overwhelmingly white than most British media productions, but the effect is particularly unfortunate when coupled with the Union Jacks and 1940s ambience. It feels like some sort of UKIP fantasy version of Britain, except with added gays.
4. Emotional depth of a DFS advert Then … there is beautiful, searing romance! The returning soldier sees his partner, embraces him and bends knee to propose. This is the bit where everyone with no soul cries. It is the worst kind of dead-eyed, hollow kitsch. Even if you can forgive a bit of cheesiness in an advert, anyone who thinks it is “beautiful” has a dangerously impoverished aesthetic sense, to put it mildly.
5. Help for Heroes! “All men can be heroes”. What. The. Fuck. I hate the whole “soldiers are heroes” rhetoric enough when it appears in British Legion ads. In an ad for marriage equality, it’s both inexplicable and appalling.
6. No women allowed! There’s no space for women in the video’s Housman-esque vision of gayness. Marriage equality is all about men, apparently: “All men can be heroes”. “All men can be husbands”. Err you do know the army lets in women these days as well as gay and bisexual men, right? And that some women want to marry other women? Get over it!
—————————–
More From Andy’s Miscellany Blog here:
