Saturday, 8 August 2009

More shameless whorebaggery

My article on Harman, misandry and honest feminism is currently thread of the day on Comment Is Free, along with a tiny picture of me looking very sulky indeed. Come on in and join the fray, the stupid is out in predictable force!

33 comments:

  1. Yeah the picture kinda looks like a stylish mugshot. I actually think you looks nicer (i.e. hotter) in your sulky picture than in your picture on this site. Just my opinion of course.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Basically, Harriet Harman's remark, being premised on the notion of a just society, was just too radical for people (including the embarrassingly preachy younger generation of feminists) to grasp. Hence the backlash, not only from the right-wingers, but even people who call themselves feminists.

    It's a shame, Penny, that you pander to the tired old cries of "misandry" which are wheeled out whenever a woman dares to state that the inequality of the status quo is not acceptable.

    Sure men can run things by themselves, if you don't mind war, rape, violent crime, commodification of women's sexuality, etc etc etc.

    It seems you're more worried about being accused of hating men (aka more concerned about male approval) than you are about the actual, very simple, fundamental premise of feminism: a just and safe society.

    Maybe when you're as old as Harriet Harman you'll actually get it. Till then, you're doing more harm than good. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "It seems you're more worried about being accused of hating men (aka more concerned about male approval) than you are about the actual, very simple, fundamental premise of feminism: a just and safe society."

    Well, if that's what Laurie's doing she's failing, miserably; that thread has all the joie de vivre of Simone Weil's birthday party.

    Anyway, the article doesn't call th'Harman a misandrist; it calls her statements misandristic. Specifically, I imagine, the one that was covered here.

    Disagree? Fine - but asserting that Harman's "just too radical" and her critics are "tired", "embarrassingly preachy" and, er, young isn't criticising, it's an extended exercise in the art of a disdainful sniff.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Dandelion: Do you really think women would screw up less then men if they were the ones occupying the top positions in business and politics?

    As I see it the problem isn't that men get most of these positions per see, it's because of the tradition that still remains from the old days were women was the second gender that was "like less capable men".
    Sure, a lot of things have changed since those days, but you can still see the footprints of it in our culture.
    Like with men being in a lot of the top positions because of tradition. It's not like it's even some sort of conscious oppression or grand scheme of the patriarch, it's a cultural habit that it just takes some time to get rid of.
    And most people like habits, so unless you take your time to patiently explain why it's bad and something else might be better (several times probably) people just aren't gonna listen too good.
    And they'll only get angry if you start accusing them of being evil bastards. It's like shouting at someone when they have no idea why you're angry. They feel that they don't deserve it, and get angry back. Or confused.
    Well, that how I see it anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Penny "... and shouty junior socialist."

    Who wrote that description and are they trying to make you not get taken seriously?

    @Dandelion: What makes you think war, rape, violent crime, and commodification of women's sexuality would stop if females came to power?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would be MUCH obliged if feminists would stop throwing around the word "whore" casually, as though it is free of connotations for women. It is not.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Come on in and join the fray, the stupid is out in predictable force!"

    And Laurie issued the rallying cry and all her followers, comrades and fellow shouty junior socialists headed the call and...er...well...nothing really.

    Maybe Laurie if you weren't so obsessed with which particular brand of radicalising, self-satisfied feminism was going to reawaken the proletariat from their consumerist slumbers and undo the effects of rampant individuation and instead organised to encourage solidarity...you might get somewhere.

    But it seems that for you, socialism means fine tuning the labelling on your pigeon hole. Sorry Laurie but we don't really need any more "feminist, queer, blah...fuckin blah socialists": we just need socialists. Lots of them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bexsix: I know. I know she referred to the comments and not the woman. And my point still stands.

    Illogic: No I don't think that, and I never said that I did. And neither did HH. That is what is so irritating.

    Anonymous001: Nothing. I was just pointing out that saying that men have done so wonderfully well by themselves for hundreds of years is not quite the full picture.

    Of course, even if women did rule the show, their hands would be tied from legislating against some of those things, for fear of being called misandrists. And there's the rub.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What is going on with you, Ms. Red?

    What's with all this "look at my picture", "vote for my blog", "read my article" shit? Desperately fishing for ego-reinforcing compliments are we? Or what? What the fuck is going on with you these days?

    You are beginning to remind me of the girls on Yahoo! answers that post pictures of themselves made up, dolled up and dressed up to the nines their question being: "Do you think I'm pretty?"

    Get over yourself!

    Whatever next lies down this road I ask myself? Sales of autographed pictures of you at the Labour Party conference shaking your fist and trying to look fierce? The Xena Warrior Princess of political blogs reduced to the status of a primping posing bastarding girl guide!

    Cut this nonsense out and go back to serious politics and journalism for Christ's sake! Save the self-aggrandisement and social shit for MySpace, Facebook or Bebo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Laurie, you pretty much covered it in your opening sentence: Harriet Harman has a unique gift for suggesting precisely the right policy changes in exactly the wrong way.

    The fact that she keeps doing so I think can't be just dismissed as being misquoted/the evil distortions of the patriarchy. It's to do with the rather simplistic concept of feminism it seems to be based on: that women will make a difference to an organisation by virtue of, well, their being women. Harman (deliberately?) keeps confusing equality in representation with the policies and practices of an organisation - hence her citing of 'Lehman Sisters'. Perhaps it would take a Tory government that's 50% female (or President Palin in 2012) before the role of ideology will be acknowledged as being as important - or does Harman think that biology is destiny as long as it makes women look good?

    [redpesto]

    ReplyDelete
  11. Who needs President Palin in 2012 - have people forgotten about Thatcher already? She's not even dead yet!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Neuroskeptic - Harman seems to have done, and Thatcher even had a Willie (Whitelaw, that is) to balance the ticket just as Harman wants. So either ideology doesn't matter, or Harman has to be much better and clearer about what she's trying to achieve beyond a more even headcount.

    [redpesto]

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe Thatcher is her kind of female politician. It's not as if New Labour rushed to reverse Thatcherite policies, now is it...

    ReplyDelete
  14. In that case, anonoymous [redpesto], why does equality of representation matter at all?

    I mean, I agree with you that ideology is important, but even if we assume it is all-important, do you not think there are more women with a woman-friendly (ie egalitarian) ideology than men?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Wow, this is Laurie's own blog and about 2 people actually have things to say in a non-patronising, non self-important way.

    To the rest of you, would you get off her fucking back already?! As Jay-Z once said, 'Go play somewhere, I'm busy.' While I think she can get rather swept up in what she believes in, Laurie is certainly not claiming to represent the views of anyone but herself in this article.

    I could not face posting on that thread because I am just not good enough to avoid resorting to 'Fuck off, you wankfaced wannabe-oppressed fuckshits'. I'd love to make them walk in the shoes of an ethnic minority woman, and then see if they carry on flaunting their 'Woe, I am a white male' bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Uh... KJB - sod off.

    Fawning comments are no use to anyone. Personally, I very rarely comment on anything that I agree with. What`s the point?

    By the way - women actually have things alot easier than men.
    I saw a programme once where they made Carol Smiley disguise herself as a man and she had a terrible time of it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. anonymous wrote:

    In that case, anonoymous [redpesto], why does equality of representation matter at all?

    I mean, I agree with you that ideology is important, but even if we assume it is all-important, do you not think there are more women with a woman-friendly (ie egalitarian) ideology than men?


    It matters to the extent that women form half the population, so it's always going to look a bit odd if professions or organisations are so skewed in favour of one gender or the other.

    As for women being more egalitarian than men, I don't see why they should be any more or any less, not least because explaining why they might be more (or less) is tricky without ending up resorting to explanations that imply some kind of 'biological' element, such as women's capacity for empathy being due to childbirth. (Alternative explanations - women have a greater capacity for egalitarianism because they've watched men screw up first or because they've been socialised to be that way - I suspect are less compelling as feminist approaches.)

    [redpesto]

    ReplyDelete
  18. KJB - thank you, honey, and sorry about the wankers.

    -For fuck's sake mark, leave KJB alone. If there's one thing she's not, it's fawning, which is why I value her uncomplicated agreement so very much on the rare occasions that it happens.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Shorter Mark: I troll, therefore I am.

    I'll just keep in mind the comments of one 'Katie Price' on another thread... :D

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous [redpesto]: "It would look a bit odd"?? That is not a good argument, nor an answer to the question.

    We don't actually need to explain why women might be more egalitarian than men. What matters for the purpose of the argument is whether they *are*, which a certain amount of research would suggest is the case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  22. No, sorry, 'Anonymous', you don't get a free pass to come on here and slag off me and my friends. If you think you can do it better, start your own damn feminist-socialist blog.

    ReplyDelete
  23. anaonymous wrote:

    Anonymous [redpesto]: "It would look a bit odd"?? That is not a good argument, nor an answer to the question.

    Hmmm... how about: if we accept that men and women are in general equally capable of most things for good or ill and make up roughly equal numbers of humans on the planet, it seems reasonable to argue that in most workplaces or organisations they would ideally form approximately equal numbers.

    We don't actually need to explain why women might be more egalitarian than men. What matters for the purpose of the argument is whether they *are*, which a certain amount of research would suggest is the case.

    I'd have thought 'why' would be a perfectly reasonable question to investigate any claim that women are more [whatever] than men (or vice versa). If research indicated women in a less favourable or more stereotypical light than men, I'd want an explanation rather than a claim of 'that's just how things are'.

    [redpesto]

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  25. KJB - I ain`t no troll.

    I`m a perveyor of quality insight.

    ReplyDelete
  26. and spelling mistakes...

    ReplyDelete
  27. My blog and you're not playing. You keep saying bad things about me. FFS

    I notice btw that the first poster to challenge you on cif got called a 'stalker' for his trouble. Care to explain that one? Fuckin unbelievable.

    Don't worry I won't be back. This is a blog run by censorious juveniles with a persecution complex and a level of political analysis which would shame a 14 year old. You are a hypocritical fraud..you might convince a liberal media ever hungry for novelty that you're a 'socialist' but, frankly you're a spoiled little kid. Did daddy buy you this blog when the pony died?

    A not so well wisher

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mark - Yes, and I grow a head-horn and morph into a magical unicorn on the weekends.

    Anonymous. Your comment is HILARIOUS! Y'know what - I used to be like you. However, I met Laurie and realised that she means well, even if she doesn't always convey that to yours' and others' (including my own) satisfaction. She really does want to help, and I've got to respect that. Hence me being here defending her as if she's my sister.

    Laurie, please please leave it up. Your 'not so well wisher' stamps out like a 5-year-old while accusing YOU of being juvenile?

    Oh, the pathetic hypocrisy!

    ReplyDelete
  29. ..stamps out like a 5 year old?

    Go on then KJB, just remind me of the advantages of sticking around when my posts keep getting deleted? Poor little Laurie declined to tell me. As far as I'm aware they didn't contravene the comments policy and while they were critical of her writing they were hardly of the "insult me personally as much as you like" category: a category which she openly welcomes anyway.

    Maybe she considers me a 'stalker': a label she fired off at her first critical commenter on the cif thread after precisely one critical comment. She hasn't bothered to justify that little outburst either btw. My "stomping off" is at Laurie's request since she doesn't seem to welcome dissent. Personally I'd rather stick around and listen to her responses to my questions but she seems to find it far more expedient to just delete them...I must have touched a nerve.

    I notice that your own 'debating skills" have hardly progressed from the playground stage either. I call her immature; you call me immature. I call her a hypocrite; you call me a hypocrite. Sort of stuck in the "same to you" groove aren't we KJB? Herte's one you'll probably appreciate: yer mam.

    Look forward to your response. I do love the site. Sorta little girls playing teaparties...pretendingto be grown ups and talking about serious stuff like 'feminist-socialism' (sic). As you so deftly have it...

    Oh the pathetic hypocrisy

    A well read wisher

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anon upthread: the term 'whorebaggery' was nicked from a male writer, where it held slightly more of a subversive edge.

    ReplyDelete
  31. And windbaggery is another good one

    ReplyDelete
  32. I saw the article where Cath Elliot wrote, "Laurie Penny has expressed the endearingly naive view that Harman should simply take some tips from the younger generation about her presentation and oratory style to avoid invoking the wrath of white men everywhere."

    I don't know much about Ms Elliot, but I think it's sad she feels unable to make her point without being bitchy. I'm sure that's unfair of me, I'm sure it's very easy to come across as bitchy accidentally, especially if you have a deadline, but still ...

    ReplyDelete

Comments are open on this blog, but I reserve the right to delete any abusive or off-topic threads.