Does Suzanne Moore Practise What She Preaches?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/outrage-culture-limits-free-speech
Suzanne Moore has waged a war on ‘outrage’ which she thinks, implemented blindly on the internet, is the enemy of free speech. If everyone is so easily offended these days, she seems to be asking, will we reach a point where nobody is allowed to say anything at all?
I agree. Or rather I would, if I didn’t think Ms Moore had some kind of agenda here, and if I didn’t think she is being a tad hypocritical. For she does not practise what she preaches.
In an early paragraph Moore writes:
‘If one’s default setting is now to be part of some anonymous but offended mob, somehow the hierarchy of outrage implodes into meaninglessness. ‘
I have had a few conversations with Suzanne, about anonymity and pseudonymity online. Basically she is against both. Or at least she is against both if they are used to criticise her and her writing. She has accused me on more than one occasion, of ‘hiding’ behind my Quiet Riot Girl moniker, and being a ‘coward’ that is afraid to face the world as my ‘real’ self. I suggested that was odd since she is friendly with people (women) such as Girl with a One Track Mind, Fleet Street Fox and Belle de Jour. All of whom have been or are using pseudonyms online. But Suzanne says they are ok because she knows their names. So anonymity is all right, so long as you disclose everything to Suzanne Moore?
Also Moore has joined with other journalists, in the call for an end to anonymous commenting ‘below the line’ at newspaper forums such as cif. I think, though she has since made statements to the contrary, that she largely agrees with this statement on the subject by Julia Hobsbawm:
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/time-to-stop-anonymous-commenting
So, when she says ‘anonymous but offended mob’ Moore is picking out a large group of people online that if she had her way, would not exist at all, let alone be having the freedom to be ‘outraged’. I see a problem there.
The next aspect of Moore’s piece I have a problem with is her insistence that she thinks ‘self censorship’ is a bad idea. In relation to Nick Cohen’s latest book on freedom of speech she says:
‘pre-publication self-censorship “is the most suffocating form there is”. This self-censorship is all around us’
Well yes. And Suzanne Moore positively encourages self-censorship. In me! A few times now she has written to me or tweeted me or left a comment on blogs, basically telling me to stop writing articles about her work. She has also emailed Mark Simpson more than once, asking him to tell me to ‘stop it’. She has commented here at Graunwatch:
‘ I’d hate if you had to engage in any world beyond your ‘oh -so -clever I am a woman who hates feminism doesnt that make me interesting stance’ If you are a woman? I’d hate to be so essentialist? Goodbye . Dont bother to ever speak to or about me again.’
http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/playing-the-rape-card/
‘Don’t bother to ever speak to or about me again’ is asking me to censor myself.
Thankfully, I am a bit stronger than that. And when I received a rather nasty email last summer from Ms Moore, telling me to ‘watch my back’ I ignored it.
But it’s not just a personal issue I have here. I think the brand of feminism that Suzanne espouses actually actively encourages men to censor themselves on a daily basis. With her kind of feminism it is my way or the highway, and the discourses of ‘pornification’, of ‘rape culture’, of ‘online misogyny’ all inhibit men from speaking out. As Simpson has put it, misandry (that Suzanne Moore often employs) is the acceptable prejudice, and so challenging it is almost impossible.
Moore’s articles that I have critiqued for being misandrous and marginalising men are examples of how she is not quite so interested in ‘freedom of speech’ for all:
http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/02/19/human-impersonators/
Feminism also advocates actual censorship, in the form of e.g. ‘zero’ zones for strip clubs in some cities, the tightening of licensing laws on sex industry venues, the removal or covering up of ‘lads mags’ from supermarket shelves and in some cases, the criminalisation of sex workers and/or their clients.
As I wrote in relation to Moore’s piece about ‘misogyny’ online, when she said ‘let’s talk’ I don’t think she meant it. She blocks me on twitter for a start!
http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/suzanne-moore-stupid-woman-columnist/
So I think this piece about freedom of speech is hollow and disingenuous. I’m not ‘outraged’ by it but I am a little bit depressed. I have the freedom to respond to it as I am doing now. But I firmly believe, that if Ms Moore had achieved what she set out to do, I wouldn’t have bothered. For self-censorship, as Moore says, is still a limit on freedom of speech.
Hello Elly I guess it was somewhat inevitable that after Mark Simpson could no longer tolerate your obsession , I would be the next target. I find it a terrible shame really, for you are totally entitled to dislike me, everything I write and stand for. But your relentless focus does disturb people as there are so many other more interesting things you could do with your time. How I am the enemy when there is so much bad stuff going down I don’t fully comprehend.
Your bitterness seems to be do with your own lack of mainstream success which you both deplore but crave and you seem rather paranoid about how it alliworks. You are probably best off self-pulbishing but if you want to be taken seriously (you claim to be an academic) you should at least get some facts right.
We had fairly convivial conversations when you were trying to get me to write for you. I offered to meet for drinks. When you realised I had known Mark a long time a certain jealousy crept in. This is my interpretation. Anyway I challenged your personal need for anonymity then not the general need for it. You can see what I have written about that. Often you get the facts simply wrong. I have spoken up for online anonymity: its all there to seen. You say that my replies are only people agreeing with me. Thats simply untrue . Besides Most weeks 3 or 400 Cifs will do just that, many more at the Mail. Most of those Cifers then dont go onto write individual and rather boring blog posts but engage with each other. I guess that’s not your style.
I blocked you as my timeline was bunged up by your kind of obsessional tweeting about me. I think blocking is always an admission of failure and don’t particularly relish doing it. Have also had to block mad “fans.”
As to our email exchanges yes I did “threaten” you as you said nasty things about my children. That for me was crossing a line. Later you emailed an apology in which you said your behaviour had been questionable but you would continue to write . And you have. Since Mark Simpson has publicly dissociated himself for you it must be very difficult. I seek not to censor you but wish you would direct your time and energy into something more productive that would not only increase your readership but even perhaps your own happiness. I hope that is possible.
Suzanne Moore
Apologies all typos here! Nor preview it on blog?
I apologised out of politeness to you and Mark as I knew he had had some hassle from you about my criticism of your work. That was during the summer when Mark and I had some problems in our friendship. I was trying to smooth over things because of my care for him. It was nothing to do with my actual feelings about you and your writing.
I do self-publish my work thanks for the tip.
and thanks for mentioning something I feel very sad about in the breakdown in the friendship between me and mr simpson. which actually I expect he feels sad about too. Stay classy Ms Moore!
re: anonymity you have made contradictory statements. This piece is very negative about the ‘anonymous mob’ you’re just not consistent.
The fact is too, you do not give a flying toss about Mr Simpson’s work. I have never seen you so much as Retweet a post by him.
p.s. re the comments about your daughter. It was in relation to an article where you said you did not tell her ‘fully’ about fisting. I joked on twitter,
‘did she just tell her about the first four fingers then?;
It was a harmless joke. You pretended it was ‘threatening’.
If that was the offending remark, I’m surprised how it could have been interpreted as “saying nasty things about my children”. Is it not rather a very clever and funny joke about the prevailing interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act?
I wish it was that clever. I didn’t know about the ‘four finger rule’ when I made the joke. I was just commenting on the irony of not telling a child ‘fully’ about fisting.
But I guess it relates to the same thing – how we are only able to talk about/represent sex *up to a point* in our culture.
You make me laugh. Sadness about Mark? Yes he had enough of cyber-stalking. You stay classy woman. I know you like to be called a woman. As for not giving a toss about Marks work this is where you are again wrong and blinded by your own compulsions. There was life before Twitter. And outside it . When Mark wrote Anti-Gay in 96 I did all the public discussions with him? You simply don’t know what you are talking about again.
Do you actually think an RT is actual validation? Christ its worse than I thought. Anyway too much of my time has been taken up. Good luck with the non-stop hating. Have a nice day lady.
Anti Gay was published in 1996. That was 15 years ago. You don’t write about his work now.
I believe everything you say. Everyone does. You are entirely right about every thing . All men are great, all women are shit, anyone who writes for The Guardian is a twat. Rapists are maligned. Gays are gayist. All porn is lovely. You personally invented S and M. And Foucault . Well done! Mark Simpson is God.
You are just trying to spread the lurve but somehow some thing gets in the way. I wonder what it is? Go girl X
Oh I will, thanks. Mark Simpson is not God. But he’s damned right about gender including his damning critiques of feminism (some of which he has made in private sadly).
I will Go Girl! Nothing stops me.
“All men are great, all women are shit”
sorry to talk about boring stuff like reality, but no one said that.
Someone does have to voice concerns about where current life leaves men and male roles, after assaults like the one by the Guardian late last year. You can’t just ignore (or villify) one sex and glorify the other.
That last is what you and your buddies seem (to me) to be doing, Suzanne. It’s irresponsible. If QRG doesn’t speak against it someone else will
But really one simple thing would sort this out . The question on Twitter that I asked you that you won’t answer in public. (self-censorshiop? ) . Your great friendship with Mark Simpson that is causing you to attack me. Have you ever met him?
Bye from the “witch” and “the ‘bitch” as you have called me today. I once offered to buy you a drink and I still would but that would mean me seeing who you are wouldn’t it Elly? And that as we know can’t happen.
Suzanne
“She has accused me on more than one occasion, of ‘hiding’ behind my Quiet Riot Girl moniker, and being a ‘coward’ that is afraid to face the world as my ‘real’ self. I suggested that was odd since she is friendly with people (women) such as Girl with a One Track Mind, Fleet Street Fox and Belle de Jour. All of whom have been or are using pseudonyms online. But Suzanne says they are ok because she knows their names”
In this day and age I’m probably not supposed to suggest that Suzanne Moore has a shaky grip on logic, but…
She and her kind really do just make stuff up on the spur of the moment, and then work out the justification later. Silly old world…
Hmmm let’s see…implying some form of mental illness (‘your obsession’)? Check. Accusations of envy ['Your bitterness seems to be do with your own lack of mainstream success which you both deplore but crave']? Check. The simultaneous need to give a mere blogger a good kicking despite having a media profile big enough to ignore them? Check. For what it’s worth I can’t decide whether this is a private argument, or a classic old media v blogosphere spat.
Hi RP
well Suzanne Moore is a judge on this year’s Orwell Prize for blogs, so I hope she is not prejudiced against bloggers. However I have heard her compare blogging to journalism before, with the bloggers losing out to the superior journalists.
If it is a private argument it has been conducted in public. But there probably are some private, personal reasons why Suzanne Moore and I clash so often. Not actually to do with our personal history which is short and uneventful, but to do with our relationship at a very personal level, to feminism.
“anyone who writes for The Guardian is
a twat.”
Not true at all, but you aren’t doing anything to dispel that myth with this sad little back and forth.
“I know you like to be called a woman”.
wow. gg
Oh dear SM.
I love the Guardian and have been reading it for over 20 years now, but when I see some of the howling articles, many of which have Ms Moore’s byline, I’m glad qrg writes this blog.
Thanks Charlie. I am glad I do too. I appreciate people discussing here, away from that place!