It occured to me that it's actually a crying shame that Giles Coren's recent piece of obvious flamebaitery (and if it isn't flamebait, well...I don't know what to say except that I know a really nice anger management chap) didn't really have anything constructive to say about misandry. And it's even more of a shame that what he did say about misandry wasn't in the form of a clear, concise argument, but rather a slightly pitiful attempt to deflect attention from the wanton stupidity uttered by Messrs Gray and Keys re: silly wimmins not knowing football.
The argument, in a nutshell: but women are mean about men too. In fact, they have an entire TV show dedicated to talking about how stupid men are, and they don't get taken off the air, so therefore what Gray and Keys said doesn't seem quite so bad.
Okay. I may be taking creative liberties with my paraphrasing but certainly, that was the gist of it. And it really is a shame, because I'd love to see Loose Women taken to task. Loose Women represents a stereotype of modern feminism that really ought to be dumped in a skip and left there - the derisive giggling at silly men, the better-than-thou attitude, not so much "I am woman, hear me roar!" as "I am woman, hear me knock off yet another mildly amusing anecdote about the time my husband was unable to perform [insert mundane domestic duty here]"
That, my friends, is not liberation. How can it be? Is liberation sticking a bunch of women around a table and inviting them to be insulting? Are we supposed to be proud of this? I'm not; I don't want to be represented, as a feminist or a woman, by this kind of playground-level nonsense.
But I digress; the point at hand here is simply this: the fact that Loose Women exists, and is bobbins, does not diminish the fact that Gray and Keys were caught saying sexist, stupid things.
Okay? It's quite simple. Misandry exists, absolutely - although it is not as overtly ingrained into societal consciousness as misogyny, and certainly lacks its centuries long pedigree - and as feminists we ought to discuss it. The much lamented Ovenpride adverts are a pertinent example. A product of the same culture which tells us women belong in the kitchen, with a none-too-subtle nod to the logical extension of this unpleasant gender stereotype - that men, having spent less time in the kitchen than their dutiful wives, are inept in the ways of domestic drudgery. Why shouldn't we be interested in wiping out this stupid, insulting stereotype? It comes from the same place as those we rage about - the domestic goddess, barefoot and pregnant, with hands that do dishes & are as soft as her face, and on the flipside, her useless husband, who creates mess for her to clean.
Where sexism against men exists, it is often as a result of the same antiquated gender rules which keep ‘teh wimmins’ in their place. Divorce courts, for example, which often rule that the mother should get custody, seem to be operating under the attitude that it is the mother’s job to care for the kids, not the father’s, which in 21st century Britain ought to be considered a highly suspect attitude.
Even odder is the backlash that occurs whenever measures are put in place to ensure father’s rights – the recent move for paternity leave was met with outrage in many circles, and I still hear snorts of derision when it’s suggested that men should be encouraged to spend more time caring for their kids - why shouldn't they? The father's role is diminished in exactly the same way that the mother's role is elevated, to an extent which traps women - we must stay at home with our children, lest we ruin their childhood forever, career be damned, and the father is simply not a viable alternative, because children need their mummy. (Just read the Daily Mail's 'Femail' section for reams of this kind of steaming bullshit)
Unpleasant male stereotypes come from the same place as those that affect women. The drooling potential rapist is extrapolated from the idea, as supported by Nuts and Zoo and their ilk, that men are mad for sex and think about it all the time. The beer-swilling buffoon comes from a similar place: ‘lad’ culture, as perpetuated by the abovementioned mags, and The Sun et al, in which going out, getting smashed and getting into a fight is a good, blokey way of passing the time. I suppose there are men that are like this, but the gleeful acceptance and elevation to 'blokey role model' status makes it almost impossible for men to be otherwise. Boys don't cry; they drink until they puke, and gawp at tits, because that's what makes them men!
It is in the interest of all genders that we smash these assertions, these rigid gender roles, confining us to a small selection of life choices, and haranguing us - men, women, trans - if we do not conform.
This is a legitimate argument. Unfortunately, it's an argument diminished by Coren. His piece smacks of whataboutery, and fails to actually make any kind of pertinent point, besides complaining about how mean women can be. If Keys and Gray were wrong, then they were wrong regardless of what Loose Women or the Ovenpride ads say about men. Why must it be an either/or situation? Can't the sexism of Loose Women and the sexism of Gray and Keys both be considered offensive without being pitted against each other in a neverending war of more-offensive-than-thou?
"Whataboutthemenz?" is a phenomenon in which a debate about sexism against women is opposed with "but it happens to men too". It's equivalent to a debate about racism being derailed by a white person saying "but what about white people? People are racist to us too." I mean, sure, that may well be so, but what does it have to do with the actual point at hand? And is it not massively patronising to suggest that thousands of years of oppression and hardship are equivalent to someone calling you 'cracker'? The same is true of gender whataboutery. Yes, men suffer sexism too, but can it honestly be comparable to the sheer level of institutionalised, state-approved (thanks, religion) sexism that has kept women (and indeed, trans people) firmly in the 'second class citizens' category? It doesn't mean that misandry shouldn't be combatted. Indeed, I think us feminists should consciously avoid lowering ourselves to insults and stereotypes - the very things we are fighting against. Nonetheless, how can there be an intelligent discourse about misandry when most of the people complaining about it are doing so in response to arguments against misogyny?
Loose Women may be cack, but it's not the same as being told you cannot be good at your job because you have a vagina. If Coren hates it so much, may I politely suggest he petition to get it off the air. Christ knows I'll even sign it.
Showing posts with label what about the men?. Show all posts
Showing posts with label what about the men?. Show all posts
28 January, 2011
23 September, 2009
Daily Mail - "Feminists are evil!"…now with added irrelevance!
The Daily Mail have published a story entitled “Why I Loathe Feminism…and believe it will ultimately destroy the family”. Which is just fine and dandy. Except that the article isn’t about feminism at all. Save a few cursory references, such as the one below:
“Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.”
The article doesn’t expand on this, but goes on to tell the story of Erin Pizzey’s abusive childhood at the hands of her mother. An awful story, yes, and it sounds as if Pizzey’s mother was an awful person (and a racist to boot. Are you listening, Daily Mail?) Her hatred of feminism is built on a singular foundation: that women are as vicious as men and that feminists deny this.
Well, yes and no. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a feminist who denies that women can be violent and cruel. We’re not fantasists; we know that women aren’t perfect. But we are acutely aware of the fact the perpetrators of domestic violence are still far more likely to be male. Amnesty International figures state that in the USA, women accounted for 85% of the victims of domestic violence in 1999 (671,110 compared to 120,100 men). That’s a hell of a majority. These findings are backed up by a study by the United States Bureau of Justice, which estimates that women are six times more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence. Amnesty International also estimate that domestic violence accounts for nearly a quarter of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales - one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.
These are worrying statistics. We shouldn’t ignore the reality of female-initiated domestic violence, we certainly shouldn't pretend it's not as serious. But we also mustn’t be cowed by sensationalist journalism which attempts to turn this issue on its head. “What about the men?” should never be an excuse to pretend that male-on-female domestic violence doesn’t make up the majority of recorded incidents. It shouldn’t sweep under the carpet that nearly half of all female murder victims in the UK are killed by a current or former partner. And it definitely shouldn’t attempt to justify the prevalence of male violence against women by suggesting that men are lashing out on the counter attack – that women bring violence upon themselves by verbally abusing their partners. This is not justification. No woman deserves to be hit or beaten because she spoke out of line. The same is true for men. It’s a massive insult to the victims of domestic violence, male or female, to suggest they were asking for it and it’s scarily similar to the rape apologist’s proclamation that an inebriated or scantily clad women is inviting rape.
It’s sad and unfair that Erin Pizzey experienced such abuse at the hands of her mother. But that isn’t feminism’s fault - it wasn't feminism that made her mother a horrible person. And surely, without feminism, she would not have the privilege of being able to publish her story in a national newspaper...?
“Thirty years later, when feminism exploded onto the scene, I was often mistaken for a supporter of the movement. But I have never been a feminist, because, having experienced my mother's violence, I always knew that women can be as vicious and irresponsible as men.”
The article doesn’t expand on this, but goes on to tell the story of Erin Pizzey’s abusive childhood at the hands of her mother. An awful story, yes, and it sounds as if Pizzey’s mother was an awful person (and a racist to boot. Are you listening, Daily Mail?) Her hatred of feminism is built on a singular foundation: that women are as vicious as men and that feminists deny this.
Well, yes and no. I think you’ll be hard pressed to find a feminist who denies that women can be violent and cruel. We’re not fantasists; we know that women aren’t perfect. But we are acutely aware of the fact the perpetrators of domestic violence are still far more likely to be male. Amnesty International figures state that in the USA, women accounted for 85% of the victims of domestic violence in 1999 (671,110 compared to 120,100 men). That’s a hell of a majority. These findings are backed up by a study by the United States Bureau of Justice, which estimates that women are six times more likely than men to be victims of domestic violence. Amnesty International also estimate that domestic violence accounts for nearly a quarter of all recorded violent crime in England and Wales - one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence in their lifetime.
These are worrying statistics. We shouldn’t ignore the reality of female-initiated domestic violence, we certainly shouldn't pretend it's not as serious. But we also mustn’t be cowed by sensationalist journalism which attempts to turn this issue on its head. “What about the men?” should never be an excuse to pretend that male-on-female domestic violence doesn’t make up the majority of recorded incidents. It shouldn’t sweep under the carpet that nearly half of all female murder victims in the UK are killed by a current or former partner. And it definitely shouldn’t attempt to justify the prevalence of male violence against women by suggesting that men are lashing out on the counter attack – that women bring violence upon themselves by verbally abusing their partners. This is not justification. No woman deserves to be hit or beaten because she spoke out of line. The same is true for men. It’s a massive insult to the victims of domestic violence, male or female, to suggest they were asking for it and it’s scarily similar to the rape apologist’s proclamation that an inebriated or scantily clad women is inviting rape.
It’s sad and unfair that Erin Pizzey experienced such abuse at the hands of her mother. But that isn’t feminism’s fault - it wasn't feminism that made her mother a horrible person. And surely, without feminism, she would not have the privilege of being able to publish her story in a national newspaper...?
07 September, 2009
The Daily Mail: Legitimising lechery since 1896
Let me preface this rant by stating that I am not a prude. It's unfortunate that I have to state this, because I would hope that most sensible-minded people would be able to see the difference between a woman terminally pissed off at the way women's bodies have become public property for sale and exchange and a woman afraid of the female form. Hell, the human body is an amazing thing - an infinitely variable masterpiece of evolution. But that would be too highbrow for the Mail.
So with that said, here is today's bone of contention: "Proof that men just can't help looking at women's boobs", an article which manages to insult both men and women in one dash of its greasy misogynist fists, as well as cleverly shoehorning Kelly Brook into the article as an irrelevant piece of window-dressing. According to the article, a whopping 47 per cent of men notice a woman's boobs before anything else. Which, er, directly contradicts the headline - less than half of men notice a woman's chest first. And that means that more than half of men look elsewhere.
But let's forget this small, unimportant statistical detail, because without it there'd be no basis for an article essentially stating "Men are going to look at your tits whether you like it or not. Deal with it". And this is insulting to both genders. It suggests that men are drooling morons driven by their basest instincts and are incapable of escaping their caveman urges to check out a lady's fertility (based on her cup size, naturally) It suggests that they cannot engage their brains enough to realise that there is a living, thinking woman behind those two lumps of mammary tissue - 'it's evolutionary!' wails the article, in an attempt to portray dirty-mac wearing perverts as perfectly reasonable men acting on instinct. Well, Mail, if this is indeed the case, how come more than half of men are able to "resist" this "natural urge" to park their peepers in a woman's cleavage?
The comments are the usual hovel of despair and decay:
I could have told them this and saved tem a lot of money. What gets me is, women wear a plunging neckline and then complain men do not look them in the eye. Give us some time-we will get to your eyes, Honey ! Admit it, you like it or you would all be wearing turtlenecks.- Bernard ex pat, Pawleys Island USA
In many ways this comment is exemplary of the most depressing type of comment: the right to own and possess women's bodies. Because what Bernard is suggesting is that, unless a woman covers herself from head to toe (Perhaps in an oppressive burkha! Ho ho, the irony) she is automatically consenting - nay, asking - to be regarded as a collection of component body parts to be measured and weighed and rated from 1 to 10. Which is utter bollocks, of course. If I wear a short skirt, it might be because I feel warm, or I like the skirt. It isn't because I'm asking to be judged by every passing man.
"Breast size is a lot like Coke and Pepsi. Men have a preference but will take whatever's on tap. As long as it's not flat.- rebecca, mallorca
Of course! Because if you admire a lady with less than a B cup, you must be gay. Or not a man. Rebecca knows these things.
I am often tempted to pin a £50 note or a photo of a nice pair of shoes to my chest just so I can walk around shouting "Hey lady, eyes up here, talk to the face" when women look at them.Why do women who put the goods on show then moan that people look at them?- brad, NIMBY
This inflamed arsehole is the worst of the bunch, by far. Not only does he employ the old and offensive stereotype of Teh Wimmins being drawn to pretty shoes or banknotes of a high value (as if men aren't!) he refers to breasts as 'the goods'. 'The Goods'! Did I miss the memo stating that my breasts were a commodity? Did I miss the meeting where it was decided that if I wear a low cut top of any kind I obviously deserve to be ogled? No. When I buy a V-neck in a shop, it does not come with a certificate stating that, on wearing the garment, I have turned myself into an object for the perusal of any man that might wish to reduce me to pieces of aesthetically pleasing meat. (Or, judging by the shouts of 'Grow some tits!' I often encounter whenever wearing said garments, less-than-aesthetically-pleasing. Hey, looks like rebecca was on to something...)
The fact is, this whole article is filled to the brim with rancid shit, and coming from a paper that preaches sexual morality, that claims to despise the sexualisation of our 'yoof', it's somewhat ridiculous to have to swallow the idea that women should submit to the lecherous gaze of the poor primitive male, that unfortunate creature who is but a slave to his instincts. Because to believe that would be to cheapen and insult the male gender, to objectify and dehumanise the female gender, and to reduce the infinitelt comples ideas of beauty, aesthetics and attraction to sneaked peeks at cleavages and surreptitious glances at the bra-line.
So with that said, here is today's bone of contention: "Proof that men just can't help looking at women's boobs", an article which manages to insult both men and women in one dash of its greasy misogynist fists, as well as cleverly shoehorning Kelly Brook into the article as an irrelevant piece of window-dressing. According to the article, a whopping 47 per cent of men notice a woman's boobs before anything else. Which, er, directly contradicts the headline - less than half of men notice a woman's chest first. And that means that more than half of men look elsewhere.
But let's forget this small, unimportant statistical detail, because without it there'd be no basis for an article essentially stating "Men are going to look at your tits whether you like it or not. Deal with it". And this is insulting to both genders. It suggests that men are drooling morons driven by their basest instincts and are incapable of escaping their caveman urges to check out a lady's fertility (based on her cup size, naturally) It suggests that they cannot engage their brains enough to realise that there is a living, thinking woman behind those two lumps of mammary tissue - 'it's evolutionary!' wails the article, in an attempt to portray dirty-mac wearing perverts as perfectly reasonable men acting on instinct. Well, Mail, if this is indeed the case, how come more than half of men are able to "resist" this "natural urge" to park their peepers in a woman's cleavage?
The comments are the usual hovel of despair and decay:
I could have told them this and saved tem a lot of money. What gets me is, women wear a plunging neckline and then complain men do not look them in the eye. Give us some time-we will get to your eyes, Honey ! Admit it, you like it or you would all be wearing turtlenecks.- Bernard ex pat, Pawleys Island USA
In many ways this comment is exemplary of the most depressing type of comment: the right to own and possess women's bodies. Because what Bernard is suggesting is that, unless a woman covers herself from head to toe (Perhaps in an oppressive burkha! Ho ho, the irony) she is automatically consenting - nay, asking - to be regarded as a collection of component body parts to be measured and weighed and rated from 1 to 10. Which is utter bollocks, of course. If I wear a short skirt, it might be because I feel warm, or I like the skirt. It isn't because I'm asking to be judged by every passing man.
"Breast size is a lot like Coke and Pepsi. Men have a preference but will take whatever's on tap. As long as it's not flat.- rebecca, mallorca
Of course! Because if you admire a lady with less than a B cup, you must be gay. Or not a man. Rebecca knows these things.
I am often tempted to pin a £50 note or a photo of a nice pair of shoes to my chest just so I can walk around shouting "Hey lady, eyes up here, talk to the face" when women look at them.Why do women who put the goods on show then moan that people look at them?- brad, NIMBY
This inflamed arsehole is the worst of the bunch, by far. Not only does he employ the old and offensive stereotype of Teh Wimmins being drawn to pretty shoes or banknotes of a high value (as if men aren't!) he refers to breasts as 'the goods'. 'The Goods'! Did I miss the memo stating that my breasts were a commodity? Did I miss the meeting where it was decided that if I wear a low cut top of any kind I obviously deserve to be ogled? No. When I buy a V-neck in a shop, it does not come with a certificate stating that, on wearing the garment, I have turned myself into an object for the perusal of any man that might wish to reduce me to pieces of aesthetically pleasing meat. (Or, judging by the shouts of 'Grow some tits!' I often encounter whenever wearing said garments, less-than-aesthetically-pleasing. Hey, looks like rebecca was on to something...)
The fact is, this whole article is filled to the brim with rancid shit, and coming from a paper that preaches sexual morality, that claims to despise the sexualisation of our 'yoof', it's somewhat ridiculous to have to swallow the idea that women should submit to the lecherous gaze of the poor primitive male, that unfortunate creature who is but a slave to his instincts. Because to believe that would be to cheapen and insult the male gender, to objectify and dehumanise the female gender, and to reduce the infinitelt comples ideas of beauty, aesthetics and attraction to sneaked peeks at cleavages and surreptitious glances at the bra-line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
