I’m now blogging for thebackbencher.com

I am now writing for http://www.backbencher.com here’s my article about those pesky feminists who just can’t survive without policing what people say:

The Tangled web of Feminists, Free Speech, and the Internet

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A law unto itself: NUS commissioned investigation concludes ‘no-platform’ is illegal. They see ‘no reason’ to change policy

Commissioning a QC to write a 37-page opinion regarding the legal status of the NUS’ no-platform policy must have been expensive. Expensive, and paid for with funds earmarked for the improvement of the lives of students. And yet, when Christopher McCall QC found that (except in the case of officially proscribed groups, such as terrorists) the no-platform policy is likely to be illegal, what did the NUS do? Nothing.

Nor can we read the legal opinion, as it has been kept ‘confidential’. Well done on transparency there, NUS.

McCall found that no-platforming groups or individuals not on official proscribed lists may fall foul of section 43 of the Education Act 1986, which contains the following:

‘Every individual and body of persons concerned in the government of any establishment to which this section applies shall take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.’

One would like to think that a student union would be pretty excited about securing every freedom possible for its members – especially those protected by law.

But sadly this does not seem to be the case. Instead of addressing McCall’s concerns, they issued a statement claiming that there was ‘no reason’ for them to change their policy. Like the friend who asks for advice and then gets annoyed when you tell them something they don’t want to hear, the NUS are demonstrating – yet again – breathtaking immaturity and arrogance.

Whether they are deciding that ‘cisgendered’ gay men just don’t deserve representation on LGBT committees, or proclaiming that some people have more equality than others these individuals are a law unto themselves. But Google Christopher McCall’s judgement and it seems that not many people are talking about this. They should be. As Sam Leith points out writing in the Evening Standard, this raises important issues; for example, will the NUS or individual SUs be held responsible if a legal challenge to a no-platform decision were to be brought successfully?

Since the opinion itself has not been published we also don’t know whether it contained any pearls of advice regarding safe-space policies either. Could it be that SUs may simply have no right to prohibit music and publications as they see fit? I would certainly like to know what a legal expert has to say about that.

The NUS spends a lot of time and energy fighting individuals and groups they consider to be fascist. There is perhaps a deep irony, then, when a group that is supposed to oppose despotism is arrogant enough to decide that the laws of the land simply don’t apply to them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Why I’m supporting ‘The Trouble with the F-Word’ documentary

Some of you might be aware of the current Kickstarter campaign for a documentary called The Trouble with the F-Word. I was interviewed for this production three years ago now, and I’m writing this blog to share my experience and opinions about the project. I’m going to try to be entirely honest and I’m really sorry if that upsets anyone from either side of the argument but I think it’s the best policy.

 

Here is the film’s official trailer:

 

And here is their Kickstarter page, with another video explaining more about the format of the documentary and the problems they have faced.

 

 

In this video the director – Vanessa Pellegrin – talks about some of the problems with getting the film funded, and also states that she has spent most of her personal income on this project. Vanessa first contacted me in 2013 asking me to speak in the documentary. At the time I asked how soon they were expecting it to air, and she didn’t know exactly but gave me an estimate of around 6-8 months. I was under the impression that it might be airing on BBC3 (more about that below). Vanessa has since explained that the BBC had said they might have been interested but then dropped the project. I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth but the impression I get is that both the BBC and other channels stopped being interested when they realised that Vanessa’s approach was to try to be as neutral as possible. This does not surprise me at all –there is very little doubt in my mind that Vanessa’s experience has been similar to what happened to Cassie Jaye in terms of how she has been viewed by both sides. I sometimes wondered why so much time went by without the documentary airing, but never really looked into it until the Kiskstarter campaign came along, but now it does make sense. At the time I don’t think those involved in the program had any idea the process would go on this long, or any concept of the wall of resistance they would encounter.

 

To be perfectly honest, I can understand why people on both sides of the debate are worried about this project. We know how feminists react the minute anyone dares to even suggest there might be a counterargument to any of their positions, so I won’t spend too long talking about it. This is how they treated the woman who set up the first ever women’s refuge when she refused to frame domestic violence as a male on female problem:

images.jpg

 

 

In terms of some of the reservations that people in the non-feminist community will undoubtedly be feeling, all I can say is that I feel them too. When I was contacted in 2013 Nick Lancaster was not yet part of the project, so the format was going to be Lucy Holmes’ journey of meeting people from both sides of the debate. I thought (and still think) that the odds of her doing a 180 on feminism are nil. She has too much invested in her activism, and after three years working on this documentary I cannot see any discernable difference in the ideological bent of her Twitter or the No More Page 3 campaign – she has changed her opinion about things like sex work, but I can’t see her leaving her ideological framework behind at any point soon. Secondly, I was also concerned by the fact that it was likely to air on BBC3 – this was before Reggie Yates, but the BBC has been a feminist propaganda machine since long before that, so I didn’t think there was any way people like me would be presented in a favourable light. Also, to those of you not from the UK, BBC3 is not a channel dedicated to intellectual pursuits – it’s pitched at young people and usually provides entertainment – their documentaries are purely designed to shape the opinions of impressionable people.

 

Despite all this, back then I decided that it was my duty to get involved. If only the more controversial members of my community are willing to speak, or only male ones for that matter, what right do I have to complain if they misrepresent us? If non-feminist women like me refuse to speak then we are playing into the hands of those who wish to paint us as down-trodden slaves to the men who supposedly boss us around, liars, or even sock-puppets. Vanessa was kind enough to spend a lot of time on the phone with me – I had a lot of questions about privacy and I was also trying to understand where she was coming from. Of course I can only vouch for my personal impressions, but she truly did strike me as someone who was trying to be as neutral and unbiased as she possibly could, and that did inspire confidence – no wonder the BBC ended up deciding they weren’t interested in the program she would have made. I had a lot of requests about my privacy etc. that she went out of her way to meet, particularly allowing me to see the final clip of my interview (I don’t know much documentary production but I assume this is pretty unusual). I met with Vanessa, Lucy and the executive producer at a bar before they decided to film me and everyone was friendly – I was offered drinks but stuck to the sparkling water as I needed to keep my wits about me! Of course Lucy and I strongly debated some issues, but I did observe that Vanessa was happy to make points for either side as they occurred to her.

 

It seems to me that if this project was intended to be yet another load of one sided rubbish it would have been funded and aired a long time ago. I did get a sense at the time that the approach to the material was a bit ‘light’, which is perhaps reflected in the tone of the Kickstarter video. I can understand why this attitude may have caused them problems – this issue is not ‘light’ or funny for a lot of the people involved, on both sides. But that doesn’t mean that the producers of this documentary don’t have a right to take that tone – one which is perhaps necessary when trying to be neutral in the face of so many fraught battles and debates.

 

The fact that they have since brought a male presenter on board does add weight to the idea that they are trying to be unbiased, and it’s also true that Vanessa has put so much emphasis on this objective that it would be super hard for her not to deliver a finished product that makes a decent attempt at impartiality. For example, she and I have talked on Twitter about how Roosh V is not representative of the MRA community – she’s done enough research to understand that Roosh and the MRAs are not friends, which is a lot more than many people who have ‘investigated’ the non-feminist community have done. I can still understand why non-feminists are a bit suspicious, and can see why the choice of Nick Lancaster might cause concern – he’s not as deeply invested in the non / anti-feminist side of the argument as Lucy is in hers. That said, I have to take my hat off to the man who is willing to even go near this issue – it is certainly putting his career and reputation on the line. Don’t get me wrong, when I hear Lucy’s arguments in the Kickstarter video about the wage gap or making feminism compulsory on the politics A-Level, I feel royally annoyed and want to shout out all the reasons why I find these points disingenuous. But I have to remember that when feminists watch Nick’s sections they are feeling the same way. Many of them will feel emotional and angry – triggered even. But like Cassie Jaye stated in the video I linked above, that’s the result of the attempt to give both sides the opportunity to be heard.

 

One thing that Vanessa said to me was ‘I’m disappointed to have been asked to become an activist when I am just a filmmaker’. This mirrors my own disappointment in the way that many within the media have handled this issue. My personal hope is that the project will reach its Kickstarter goal. Partly because I don’t want to see a person who has worked really hard and tried her best ruined financially, but also because I’d like to see support for material that doesn’t promise to feed only the agenda of one side. Of course, everyone needs to judge for themselves, but I have made a donation to the Kickstarter and hope that more people will do the same.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Did a woman from my community just get urine poured over her face?

So a lot of people on Twitter have been asking me why I haven’t done a blog in over a year – well it’s partly because I’ve been super busy (I can just about manage 140 characters a day sometimes) but it’s also because I’m worried about attracting too much attention from our friends over at SocJus. They are scary; I have met up with people who have had their careers ruined, who have been threatened, who have had false allegations made against them, who have lost their jobs because of saying things these people don’t like. Sometimes I think maybe I should just stop being so paranoid. After all, these are people who claim to fight for the rights of everyone, who want equality, and who – especially – want the voices and opinions of women to be listened to, and respected. They abhor the violent and controlling ways of male dominated western patriarchy. It’s all about creating a safe space for a dialogue. Right?

Wrong.

So this morning, I wake up to news on my Twitter feed that someone has covered Lauren Southern (Libertarian, non-feminist journalist and YouTuber) in what may have been urine at a protest last night.

It seems that a group of activists were protesting at the planned venue of a speech in Vancouver which was not going to go ahead as the speaker had been barred from entering Canada. The following footage shows Lauren discussing issues of gender and feminism with some of the protesters present, who identify as feminists. There is strong disagreement, but at least there’s a conversation going on, and nobody is breaking the law. Someone pours a bottle of liquid over Lauren’s head and face. There is an altercation between the person who poured the fluid and someone defending Lauren (I think).

 

 

 

As Lauren leaves people can be seen sticking their fingers up at her and shouting things like ‘burn in hell bitch’. Some of them are loitering around in masks. These people are not afraid. These people do not care about a woman’s feelings, or her safety, or her consent. These people – who in a debate about misogyny would be happy to argue that the word ‘bitch’ is an insult that shames and oppresses all women – are not shy about shouting gender based insults at a woman, laughing at her when someone covers her in God knows what, and insulting her intelligence. Not everyone in the crowd behaved like this – of course not. But, unfortunately, this bullying, hostile and intimidating attitude is characteristic of so many of the activists who today claim to be coming from a position of powerlessness and oppression. For example, compare their behaviour to the people protesting at this speech. Screaming, making rude finger gestures and storming off. Do they look like people who have no rights? Do you think the people who made this speech before Christina Hoff Sommers spoke at Oberlin College really needed a ‘safe space’? Do you think they would have allowed someone from the other side of the argument to make a joke about ‘only biting people they don’t like’? And some of what happened to Maryam Namazie when she spoke at Goldsmiths was pure thuggery.

 

The fact that they treat women and LBGTQ people like this demonstrates that these people do not care about women. Or gay people. Or oppressed people. They care about one thing: their ideology. Being right. Just like the non-feminist community (of which I proudly consider myself to be a part) these people don’t care what gender or race you are. They admire people because they agree with their ideas. There’s nothing wrong with that. But what’s so galling about it is the hypocrisy; this is how Anil Dash (who only retweeted women for a year) treated me:

Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 11.01.38

Screen Shot 2016-03-05 at 11.05.20

 

(I don’t think he really can have read my blog properly, since his first reply came back within a minute and the second after 14 minutes)

 

When a movement that claims to fight for womens’ right to make their voices heard can rejoice pouring a bottle of urine over a woman’s head, and delete her posts that are critical of feminism from Facebook, I think we can all see that it’s ideology they are committed to, not women.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments

Please don’t call me a feminist

As someone who was a teenage Daria lover this was the first thing that came to mind when I heard the lovely Ms Watson’s speech. Many thanks to @ouroborosidiots for making the clip for me; my technological ability reflects the fact that I’m an oppressed victim of the patriarchy.

Most of Emma Watson’s speech was irritating. Not that that’s a problem; if people want to ‘galvanise’ males by inviting them to sign up for phenomenally stupid initiatives which won’t do anything but make pop feminists feel a bit better about themselves then who am I to stand in their way. However, what really really annoyed me was the passive aggressive digs at those who choose not to identify as feminists. While she states ‘it is not the word that is important. It’s the idea and the ambition behind it’, she still makes a point of defining those who believe in ‘equality’ as ‘inadvertent feminists’. In her examples of such people she included those who don’t love their children less if they happen to be girls, and those who don’t assume women will go ‘less far’ because they might have a child. So what she’s really saying is ‘you might not think you’re a feminist, but if you’re a decent human being you are one anyway.’ No nod whatsoever to the fact that there may be different interpretations of what ‘equality’ means or the extent to which these interpretations should be enforced. No acknowledgement that there’s a difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

And why do they need an ‘ism’ for what they do if all it means is someone who does not discriminate against women? I often say this to people who call me stupid or ignorant for not being a feminist:

Look up what an ‘ism’ is. If you think we need one of these to think of women as people, then you’re the one with the problem.

Do we need ‘isms’ to denote treating any other group of people well? How about: Personism, childism, peopleofcolourism? When it comes to prejudice an ‘ism’ usually refers to the bad thing; we have terms that we apply to those who are doing something we all know is wrong: ageism, sexism, racism so we can describe those things when we see them. We don’t have or need a set of ideological labels to which we must all subscribe before it’s possible to be viewed as a good person.

Many people do not identify as feminist because while they agree with the ‘dictionary definition’ they feel ‘the battle has been won’, at least in the West. However, for me it’s the dictionary definition that’s the most problematic thing about it. To declare that an ‘ism’ (an ideology) which focuses on only one gender should be synonymous with thinking that men and women should be treated as equally valid human beings is, to me, totally offensive because it implies that ordinary people need to opt into a movement or set of beliefs to view women as people. The idea that women can only be ‘equal’ if people opt into an ideology is also, in my opinion, a philosophically self defeating argument.

If you interview the general public in most western countries, most people agree that they support equal rights and standing for both genders, but a much smaller number identify as feminists. I believe people sense that the movement is based on ideology that interprets history and society in a particular way and choose to reject the label. The great irony here? If feminists really cared about the dictionary definition and nothing else, this wouldn’t bother them in the slightest. They wouldn’t care about the label if people accepted the basic principle. But they do care – and it’s because the ideology matters more to them than women ever will. For the term ‘feminist’ to mean what they want it to mean, one has to accept the theory that the balance of power has historically been shifted so far against women’s interests that an ideology is necessary to redress the balance – I believe that definitions ought to include this nuance; it is a perfectly arguable position and if people want to believe it I will defend their right to do so. But it is theory, not fact. Every branch of feminism is based in some way on the theory of patriarchal oppression – and feminists need to be honest about that.

Feminists seem to just want everyone to accept their label because it’s about ‘equality’. But then you hear a lot of those same people seemingly contradicting themselves by saying things like ‘well it isn’t feminism if it doesn’t include blah blah blah’, or ‘if they said blah blah blah they’re doing feminism wrong’, ‘my feminism this, my feminism that’. My reply to these people is that nobody put them in charge of deciding what feminism is, or who is and is not a ‘real’ feminist. Well, if every feminist gets to define the ideology and movement for herself/himself then I get to do the same – and reject it.

So, Emma, I’ll be the one to decide whether I’m a feminist, thank you very much. You do think women should have the right to define themselves, don’t you?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 24 Comments

Some thoughts on feminists shutting down those who dare to disagree

Please Note: I encourage you to read the relevant Twitter conversations and make up your own mind.

Please do not hassle any of the people I discuss here.

It has taken me over a month to write this blog. It has taken that long because I’m afraid. I understand it’s not just me that’s afraid. I am afraid I’ll be accused of harassing people even though all I’m doing is expressing my opinion. I’m afraid I will potentially be silenced by having my social media frozen. I am even afraid that I might be arrested and put on trial like Gregory Allan Elliott. I know that it’s very unlikely any of these things will happen – I doubt that I’m important enough to become a target for that sort of thing, but the possibility is there and has kept me silent for a long time.

And that’s the reason I feel the need to write this piece, which was inspired by two cases where people who have dared to criticise feminists have been treated appallingly. Any of us could be next, and I believe it’s caused by a very righteous mind-set which makes the awful assumption that anyone making a criticism of feminism must be a misogynist. I discuss draft EU legislation that makes this assumption here.

I am not writing this as an ‘attack’, and I don’t want to distress anyone, or spur others to send them unkind messages. I would rather not make this personal by writing about individual feminists, however I simply cannot address the issue here without discussing individual cases, for what disturbs me is that the ‘victim’ status of several women is being used to shut down valid criticism of their activism. I have no wish to silence them; I am writing this to point out hypocrisy.

The first case that has me terrified is that of Gregory Allan Elliott, who is on trial in Canada for some tweets he sent to/about Stephanie Guthrie and two other women. There really isn’t a huge amount of information about this online, so please do your own research before making up your mind, but from what I can tell the issue in this case is that while none of his tweets were threatening, he may be found guilty if Guthrie is able to prove that she was ‘scared’ by his criticism and rudeness. Sure, some of his tweets were rude, but that’s not illegal and if it were many people who use Twitter – including many feminists would be in jail right now.  There has not yet been a verdict in this case, but if he is found guilty people like me really will have cause to fear, while Guthrie is busy rolling her eyes.

A much smaller scale incident has also deeply shocked and saddened me, and I’m writing about it here because it enabled me to witness first hand how feminism is able to demonise critics who have done nothing wrong whatsoever. At the start of February 2014, influential Twitter feminist Caroline Criado-Perez made some – in my opinion – misleading and grossly unfair accusations about Mark Sparrow, a journalist who covers issues affecting the disabled. He is one of the nicest people I have ever interacted with on Twitter (seriously, look at his tweets – he’s funny and never horrible), and is part of a group (as am I) that is very sceptical of ideology that claims ‘all women are oppressed’, a sentiment regularly expressed by Criado-Perez. I believe that such assertions are serious, far from proven, and something that both women and men have a right to refute.

On February 1, Criado-Perez accused Sparrow of being creepy, obsessed, aggressive and of stalking her profile (after seeing this tweet), only for it to transpire that all he had been doing was reading her tweets and blog posts and then discussing them with others on a regular basis. She admitted that her reaction was not caused by the tweet itself, but by the fact that he has been reading and responding to her blog and Twitter feed for several months. She even coined a new phrase to refer to this: ‘hate reading’. Yes. Hate reading. You heard it here first – reading the words of a well-known figure and regularly discussing what they write is ‘hate reading’. As well as being horrid about him, she called him names based on male genitalia (prize prick), which surely by her standards is sexist…non? I actually have no problem with the fact that we have different insults for men and women and that many of them are based on toilet parts, but it would be nice if feminists could practice what they preach.

On a similar note, if a man had said this about a prominent Twitter feminist (or even any woman), what do you think would have happened?

Criado-Perez then goes on to demonstrate that she expressed her disgust at Sparrow’s ‘social standing’ without having looked into who he is in even the most basic way. She tweeted the following about Sparrow:

What shocks me about this that the first hit of a Google search for Mark Sparrow’s name returns the following page on the Guardian website, which confirms that he is in fact a journalist who has contributed to that newspaper and who has also presented a documentary on hospital food. He may not be the most prolific Guardian contributor, but that is certainly no reason to insinuate he may be a liar. Moreover, if she had taken 10 minutes to read some of his work on there she might have discovered that he suffers from a debilitating bone disease. She may also have read about how he wishes he could contribute to the running of his home equally to his wife, and do his ‘proper share’ of the housework. This might have made her less likely to announce to 25k followers that he ‘hates women’.

Not that she had to read any of his articles. But if you felt that a person was ‘hassling’ and ‘obsessively focused’ on you to an extent that you felt they were enough of a threat block them, and took the time to read their Twitter bio, doubt their claims and express these doubts to others, wouldn’t you check them out first? I agree it would be really quite ‘creepy’ for someone who claimed to write for the same newspaper as you sometimes do to transpire to be a fake, but she could have established within minutes that he is not, and that he is a person who writes rationally about an important social issue.

Ms Criado-Perez’ Tweets received plenty of replies either in support of Mark, or pointing out that her comments were hypocritical and unfair (such as the replies to this tweet, or this one). Many Twitter users also defended him vociferously and were highly critical of Criado-Perez. However, some of the most salient criticism of her behaviour came from another prominent feminist who called her out and asked for her to justify her statements. I am very grateful to Louise Mensch for doing this, not just for her coherent and logical persistence, but for the fact that she was not afraid to hold a fellow feminist to account for behaviour she felt was unjustified. If there is one thing I would like people to take away from this blog post it’s this Tweet exchange:

Embedded image permalink

The fact that there are feminists out there who are prepared to call out unfairness like this is one thing that gives me hope.

I want to make it clear that I don’t think Tweets like these should be removed from Twitter. They are just opinions. What scares me about this is that Criado-Perez should know better. She has become a household name and has over 25k followers on Twitter – many people listen to her and believe what she says. She is a person who knows how it feels to have horrible things said to and about her when she has felt vulnerable. She is a person who is part of a movement who claims to advocate fairness and equality for all. Yet she decides to make rude and nasty claims about someone who by all accounts –even her own – has done nothing worse than follow what she has written and discussed it critically. I am also entirely shocked at the manner in which she throws around the word ‘troll’. She is arguably the most well-known victim of trolling, and frequently writes of the terrible trauma it has caused her, indeed she made reference to the rape and death threats she has received multiple times during this tweet exchange. To place a person who has communicated rationally, openly and in civil language in the same category as a violent and senseless abuser is incredibly unfair.

Many of Criado-Perez’ tweets on Feb 1 implied that Sparrow had been wrong to follow and critique her activism during a time she was receiving abusive messages. Well, I’m sorry but being on the receiving end of abuse does not place a person’s opinions above question – Katie Hopkins has made it clear that she receives huge amounts of exactly the same abuse but does that mean nobody has the right to question anything she says? Sweet Jesus no. Placing people above criticism and censure is dangerous – read The Crucible.

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , , | 18 Comments

 I become more dismayed every day at the failure not only of feminism to acknowledge that gender is a variable (for that is to be expected), but of others to point this out. Here are some points on the subject which are by no means a masterpiece.

 

The brilliant Girl Writes What has a great video on atheism (for those of you who don’t know, feminism has caused significant disagreement within the atheist community) where she points out that the question of whether God exists and the issue of whether religion is good or bad are separate, and that conflating the two is problematic. It seems to me that the same logic can be applied to the question of gender differences; the idea that gender differences are socially constructed rather than innate, of course, forms the backbone of much of the feminist activity going on today (hence campaigns seeking to brand princess related toys ‘sexist’ etc.), is separate to the question of whether those differences are good or bad.

 

Anyway, feminists currently working on the theory that we are all brainwashed into our gender roles bemoan this tragedy. But they also accuse people who make ‘negative’ generalisations about women (apparently they are the self-appointed judges of what is and is not ‘negative’) of being ‘sexist’. Hang on a minute though, if us women really are brainwashed into…shock horror… liking shoes, then we like shoes. Surely in that case it’s not sexist to say that we like shoes, is it? Or is it sexist because women don’t actually like shoes, and the whole thing’s a lie? Because in that case we can’t be brainwashed, can we? Make up your mind please. Otherwise we end up in a totally circular train of logic – ‘women like shoes because they live in a society that tells them to like shoes’. Aside from being a total insult to the intelligence of women, this argument fails to address any external factors for why this might be. (Go on someone; tell me in the comments that the external factor is ‘patriarchy’. Go on. Do it.)

 

So, I think feminism shouldn’t get to have it both ways – if gender differences are ingrained from birth, why bother branding those who draw attention to these differences as ‘sexists’. Either the stereotypes have a basis in day to day reality or they don’t. If you want people to stop saying that women love shoes because you don’t think that sort of thing should be encouraged (because you think gender differences are bad), why not explain to the people who make adverts like the one in the link above that they ought to join in the righteous reconditioning of social consciousness – using all product design and marketing material to teach women and men right thinking, rather than to sell products? Oh, wait. Nobody would listen to such puritanical nonsense. Better stick to the oppression theory in that case.

 

Doesn’t it seem more likely that while men and women are equally capable of shallowness, callousness, greed and superficiality, that the manner in which these traits are expressed will be conditioned by gender to a certain extent?

 

For example, does it not make sense that people will interact with individuals who are potential sexual partners differently to how they interact with those who are not? And that this might hold when a person is being both pleasant and unpleasant?

 

But no. None of this logic is allowed, because men and women are supposed to be equal. Equal as in the same. Nobody is allowed to mention the word ‘biology’ (seriously, they fall into name-calling apoplexy if you do), and therefore nobody is allowed to suggest that we might want to view gender as a scientific variable. Nothing can be the result of a variety of factors coming together to produce an outcome; only discrimination can explain why the world doesn’t allow people who are slightly smaller and have babies & boobies to live lives just like men.

 

Well, I’m not just a less muscular version of a man, thank you very much. My strength does not lie in muscular power. If, on average, men are capable of physically overpowering women does it not make sense that women have a different kind of power, a different potency, a different allure? And yes, that power might be connected to sexuality. You may not like that it is, but just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean there’s an evil abstract entity enforcing it that you have to bring down.

 

Well, anyway that was my little foray into feminist thinking. Now I’m going to return to something I said above. I think it might be a little bit more likely. The real problem here is that feminists don’t like gender differences. And that’s ok. You don’t have to like everything. And you can campaign against anything you don’t like. That’s the beauty of living in a free country (although here in the UK feminism is working on changing that, but anyway…). But please don’t construct a narrative in which we are all at the mercy of an invisible force that only you have the intelligence to see and understand.

Aside | Posted on by | Tagged , , , , , | 8 Comments