It’s time to get angry
This article titled “It’s time to get angry” was written by Suzanne Moore, for The Guardian on Saturday 15th January 2011 09.00 UTC
Children say the cutest things! Over Christmas one of mine told me that years ago she asked me why I was a feminist. It was on the way to school and I am not a morning person. Possibly she was expecting something about equal pay. Apparently I snapped: “Because men do horrible, horrible things”. She was alarmed.
That was bad of me wasn’t it? A little sexist? Warping the mind of a young girl. She is now grown up and thinks it’s funny. It’s probably not in any childcare manual and the right answer would have been stuff about wanting equal opportunities. Or I could have replied that anyone with a brain, man or woman, would see the necessity of feminism. I could have been “inclusive”.
Nowadays, saying bad stuff about men is not how feminism conducts itself. We all lurve men. We are all smiley for fear of being labelled man–haters. And what is the result of this people-pleasing, ultra-feminine, crowd–sourced sexual politics? Sod all.
Reasonably sitting around waiting for equality while empowering oneself with some silicone implants does not really seem to have worked wonders, does it ladeez? Postfeminism – as personified by the Sex and the City generation – basically confused sexual liberation with shopping: a mistaken strategy even within its own market-driven terms. So we live on a permanent diet of crumbs from the table. A woman over 50 gets to be on TV! Whoopdiwhoop! It’s a victory, sure, but is that all there is? It’s time to wake up and smell the skinny latte.
A woman is murdered in Bristol and the response is to tell women to stay at home?! For their own safety. Though no one thinks it’s a woman doing the murdering. A curfew on men would be considered a monstrous idea, even though most women live with internalised curfews anyway.
An argument about gangs of men who “groom” young women for sex becomes an argument about ethnicity and faith. Of course, these are issues to be discussed, but the central issue, surely, is the abuse of children. Turning vulnerable young girls into drug-addicted prostitutes is disgusting in any culture. But it wouldn’t be a viable proposition if men did not want sex with these children. As with all arguments about prostitution, the one group we rarely hear from are the men who buy sex. The “punters”.
I don’t like the jargon “sex workers”. We are all sex workers these days, unless we are celibate, as we are all encouraged to pursue lifelong sexiness. Most young women are endlessly groomed to be desirable after all. Yet the men who have sex with young, frightened, addled girls choose to do so. Such sex, we are told, is about power. To have sex in a car with a heroin addict is very cheap indeed. It goes on day in and day out, and of course it makes me wonder about male sexuality. As does the use of rape as a weapon of war. To say these things is not to say all men are rapists. But some are. To not say them does not make it stop.
It is as though feminism had to sex itself up to keep itself interesting. We are not hairy man-haters who bang on about domestic violence and abuse. We are fascinating women interested in fashion, relationships and true intimacy. OK, so we have a few little problems like having it all turning into doing it all, and finding a nice guy to do any of it with at all, but look on the bright side! We have got a few more female MPs, our girls are doing well at school and isn’t life grand?
Well no. No it isn’t. Just as the third way, or triangulation, produced a dire shutting down of political discourse, the triangulation of feminism, the third wave, as it was often called, has produced pitiful results. Part of the problem was that what many American feminists were writing in the last decade was simply superimposed onto British culture. It didn’t work. We don’t have a moral majority.
To see Naomi Wolf, that histrionic proponent of the third wave, pop up to demand that the women accusing Julian Assange of sexual assault and rape be named (surely they have already been shamed) is a logical conclusion of this deal. It is a dead end. Much of Wolf’s work is privileged narcissism dressed up as struggle. The Beauty Myth did not have an original thought in it, but never mind, it remains the only feminist text read by many. Wolf and many of her contemporaries muddled the personal with the political to such a degree it is embarrassing. Wolf was snapped up by the media as she was beautiful – as though feminists couldn’t be. Greer and Steinem were lookers, weren’t they? Wolf’s argument now about the anonymity of accusers in rape trials arrives on these shores a little after the Lib Dems dropped this peculiar proposal, which was never in their manifesto anyway.
Weirdly, this was really the only thing the Lib Dems have had to say about women since being in power. There are valid arguments to be made about not treating rape differently to other crimes. But the police here know many women won’t come forward and all are aware of our appallingly low conviction rates.
Still, everyone seems to lose their heads around Assange. I picture Bianca Jagger washing his feet with her tears soon. Wolf actually compared him to Oscar Wilde. The similarity is that they were both in solitary confinement. Practically the same person then?
Of course, Wolf has every right to think what she likes about Assange’s accusers – and to change her mind as she did about abortion – but what kind of feminism is she now espousing? I find it very difficult to know.
God, how I miss those troublesome women like Andrea Dworkin and Shulamith Firestone. They may have been as batty as hell but they had passion. And balls. They were properly furious at the horrible things men do to women. Who in their right mind, male or female, isn’t? Your mother, your sister, your daughter are being told to stay inside and not complain too much. Take up knitting or vajazzling maybe?
Or take comfort from Gideon’s “We are all in this together”? The last election was the most regressive for women I can remember. Women appeared as trophy wives, or not at all. The consequences of that are that this government – this new way of doing politics – is hitting women and children the hardest. Women are suffering most from the cuts that men are making. Just look at the figures.
This makes me very angry indeed. Which I know may increase “visible signs of ageing”, but it’s way too late now. Feminism has been dumbed down into politeness and party-political promises for far too long.
The backlash is happening in front of our eyes. Recession, of course, leads to reactionary measures and some of this reaction is taking away the few gains women have made. We can take nothing for granted. We need fire in our belly for this fight, not a bleedin’ gastric bypass.
Angry Birds is the name of a game about birds and pigs. It is, as everything is now, an app. But I don’t want an app. I want a movement.
Angry Birds. I am one. Join me.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
“Some” men do terrible things. Or perhaps we should consider that all “people” do terrible things, too.
Throughout time, lots of men have done lots of reprehensible things to women. Women have certainly been almost universally the most discriminated-against and abused group of people. Without question. If you’re a minority and the white man is keeping you down…. chances are you’re getting it twice as bad if you’re a minority woman. And you’d be getting it from your own people, too.
But let’s not simply make broad statements against men. The word “feminist” does not mean “woman.” Lots of men are feminists (though the thought of calling myself a feminist makes me cringe and think of Eddie Vedder and Kurt Cobain and other flannel-clad, ultra-sincere and humourless 90s grunge rocker types).
But I see your point, especially the bit about post-feminism and Sex and the City. Ariel Levy’s book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Woman and the Rise of Raunch Culture explores this phenomenon in depth. It’s an interesting, yet depressing read: women debasing themselves and other women in the name of “equality” (and destroying the hard-won legacy of feminists from the 60s and 70s).
The Assange case, however, is a bit more complicated. As a general rule, I’d automatically agree that the identities of the accusers should remain confidential. This, of course, would be because I’d expect the facts (or something resembling the facts) to be revealed in court, the prosecution to disclose all evidence to the defence prior to the trial and the accused to get his opportunity to confront his accuser in that venue. In the case of Assange, who knows what will happen? If this is a political hit job, then I would be shocked for him to receive anything resembling a fair trial.
On the other hand, if he’s just some creep that raped two women…
And then there’s the issue of the charges. Last time I read about this (and it’s been awhile, so I accept that more info may be available now), no one seemed to know exactly what Assange was being accused of. He could’ve simply failed to wear a condom or refused a blood test. If that’s the case (and again, if I’m correct), I personally don’t see that as ‘rape’ and I wouldn’t expect the accusers to receive the same sorts of protection.
But I digress. I suppose the bigger issue here is that so many have rushed to judgment on this case and have seemingly discarded or disregarded their principles in the process. They may be proved right (or not) but the long-term effect is probably more damaging in a general sense.
Ugly and stupid. Oh…sorry I am a man and I think you are ugly and stupid….is that sexist? Or just my view….oh well I guess it’s because I am a man….oh well I guess it’s just because I am a man….oh well…
I did not agree with Moore’s article at all. Here is my response to it:
http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/01/15/38/
Quiet Riot Girl, your blog entry really got to the point, where Suzanne Moore’s confused effort of an article failed to; I used to enjoy her columns once upon a time, but as both a feminist and a journalist she seems to have run out new things to say in this century. I’d suggest that she be put out to pasture, but no doubt I’d be accused of both sexism AND ageism…
As for Andrea Dworkin, she built her entire fake career on self-absorbed misandrist whining and sexist generalisations!
Suzanne, your article is brilliant. Its always time to speak out. Feminism is as necessary as ever, the issues change and develop, but violence against women and girls (and boys) continue in horrible forms, and all over the world. This is 2011. Most ordinary people can see that women are not treated fairly or justly. Ignore these previous comments. (what is it about feminism that can possibly be wrong?)
I agree feminism has been dumbed down, I also feel that the wrongs against women are so much more normal and endemic now that often it takes someone to point them out. Thanks.
Enid Blyton, I suspect that much of the dumbing-down of feminism has been the result of gender ‘feminists’ attempting to monopolise the term, and hence alienate both women who don’t share their misandry and men who would otherwise be supportive of gender equality.
Caroline Halliday, the problem with attempting to deal with gender imbalance as a global issue is that it fails to take into account the very major socio-economic and cultural differences between various countries and continents; besides, I get the distinct impression that there is a generation of young women in this country that is unaware of the massive social changes which have occurred over the last forty years, the majority of which have improved the position of women.
Perhaps when Suzanne Moore writes an article which genuinely takes into account the complexity of the power dynamic between the sexes in this day and age, and offers cerebral solutions to the imbalances, the likes of me may feel renewed respect for her as a writer.
What I have seen in the last 30/40 years is the amazing and inspiring ways women world wide are dealing with and changing the issues they are facing in their own countries in their own ways. This is global feminism.
There are many different groups of young women. Younger feminists are mostly very aware of what older feminists have been doing for the past 30 years and want to work in intergenerational ways. Other young women are expressing themselves how they choose.. and coming up against entrenched patriarchal institutions. Still others are strongly affected by the sexualisation of our society, and expected to be the kind of ‘sexiness+hard work+ everything’ woman that S. Moore points out.
And why dont YOU write about the gender imbalances and the things YOU think we should do about them?
Caroline, that would be because I’m not PAID a generous salary by a national newspaper, nor do I have a reputation as a serious journalist to uphold.
As it happens, I have a fair amount of admiration for many of the younger generation of genuine FEMINISTS, who demonstrate energy and imagination, not to say a sense of both humour and realism; the kind of young women I was referring to are those who have been the main beneficiaries of the many changes that have been brought about by a previous generation of women (and men), yet who whine impotently about ‘inequality’ without either embracing activism, or acknowledging their debt to those who went before them. Oh, and the lumpen followers of Dworkin and MacKinnon, about whom the less said the better…
I also notice that you raise that old chestnut, the ‘sexualisation’ of society. That’s actually more of a double-sided issue: I would argue that men in British society (with the exception of sportsmen and other ‘celebrities’) are undergoing DESEXUALISATION, as a result of negative, unflattering stereotypes perpetuated by the media (principly, the advertising industry) and other cultural factors.