As a decades-long, right-on supporter of genuine gender equality, I've been finding it increasingly distressing to realise that ultra-PC gender politics has become the Trotskyism of the 21st century - the extremist political fashion of the moment.
All that self-righteous Leftist rabble-rousing had to go somewhere with the collapse of industrial society in the west and increasing irrelevance of trade unionism and for a while it was left in the wilderness getting sour.
Now it has become increasingly clear that in place of the 20th Century's working class and strikes and agitation and selling Socialist Worker outside the factory gates and "no free speech for Fascists" we have "No free speech for even mild deviations from the PC line on wymmyn's or gay issues".See polymath (and now ex-Twitterer) Stephen Fry being fried alive this week for daring to point out that gay women are generally not as promiscuous as gay men. Disseminated of course via Twitter and Facebooks and blogs - the demo placards of the digital age.
The Fry quote:
''If women liked sex as much as men, there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. Women would go and hang around in churchyards thinking: 'God, I've got to get my f------ rocks off', or they'd go to Hampstead Heath and meet strangers to shag behind a bush. It doesn't happen. Why? Because the only women you can have sex with like that wish to be paid for it.''
Somewhat bluntly expressed, and obviously a vast over-generalisation (clearly women do enjoy sex other the human race would not have lasted) - but then Fry is a comedian and all-round literatus who likes to employ hyperbole. IT'S A RHETORICAL DEVICE, PEOPLE. IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY. (Oops, sorry for shouting).
As my friend Marie Ryan, a staunch feminist of the non-extremist kind, wrote in a comment on a post by blogger Mike Stuchbery, "I don’t think Fry was saying women don’t enjoy sex, merely that they don’t have the same need for it as men, which I reckon is fairly accurate – on average. Sure there are women with high sex drives but, on the whole, men outdo us in the amount of time they think about sex, masturbate and generally feel the need for it.
"I think Fry does have a problem with women and is much more comfortable in the company of men but the vilification he’s been subject to for essentially expressing his opinion is ridiculous. What happened to free speech?"
In suggesting that lesbians are less promiscuous and sex-obsessed than male gays, as evidenced by the absence of gay women's beats, Fry was stating the obvious. Like the proverbial Emperor's new threads, the obvious can be a little hard to take for those invested in keeping it suppressed. Which is one reason why it was greeted with screams of outrage from the blogosphere.
There is an ideological reason behind all this noxiousness: 21st Century Gender Trotskyism is less concerned with equal opportunity and women being oppressed around the world and stoned to death in Iran and prevented from driving in Saudi Arabia than upholding the ideological shibboleth (and biological idiocy) that men and women are exactly the same.
What do we want? "All humans to have cocks and vaginas and wombs." When do we want it? "Now!"
10 comments:
The dialogue about sex often collides with the social hypocrisy. Human nature has a variety of sexual needs, expression, strengths and frailties. The complexities of intimacy are smoothed over by bluff, bravado, alcohol and drugs. The expectations that everyone is a sexual champion is one aspect of bullshit amongst many.
The more things change, the more they ask for change, and stay the same anyway.
Agreed, it would seem that people have been falling over themselves to be more "right-on" in this than the next person. I think the response is perhaps also symptomatic of a degree of over-exposure of Fry... he's an interesting fellow and a good actor (though Bright Young Things suggested that his talents might not extend to directing feature films), but when one is seen almost daily in the media, they are always riding for a fall.
Why do we still allow Feminism to enter contemporary rational debate? We learnt in the 90s that core feminism was as irrational, hypocritical and deceitful as any FUNDAMENTALIST movement humanity has ever seen.
Most of us realised in the 70's that equality was a noble and valid aspiration but we soon recognised the embodiment of that old adage "Power Corrupts"; when wymyn started to take over the education, media and arts departments in the public service and started to run them with domestic vengeance.
Trotskyism can no longer be seen as a movement; The warrior-like slogans just don't stand up in this densely populated planet anymore: "There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances". And what are these circumstances? This statement clearly comes from a man utterly ignorant of the social and environmental issues facing a planet in a post industrial/pre technological/ideas based epoch.
If I were the dumbest most uneducated, self-important bitch on earth; I would still not want to follow a blinkered, self-defeating movement which is more concerned about materialism and kudos than the insidious acts perpetrated on its sisters in Africa, the Middle East and even Indonesia.
The hubris of Feminism nowadays betrays it's "all-woman-mandate" for what it apparently is: An insular pocket of protection for luxuriant over-educated, inexperienced-in-life Sisters who are prepared to sacrifice all pinciples for personal gains. Its about exploiting power for the over educated/inexperienced female drifters as if "power" was just the ownership of ice cream.
No wonder the word "Equality" has no meaning and Shame on you Women who think your career is more important than the sufferings of the real women who struggle to live on this planet with their so called God-Given-Blessings....
re "No free speech for even mild deviations from the PC line on wymmyn's or gay issues".
I love that any time these days a person blurts out something misogynist or homophobic, the trendy thing is to get angry at the 'PC police' that attacks them. There is this aura of 'thats right Im a lefty but Im no crazy like these oher lefties so you know Im always right in all matters and just generally better'. Also passion in civil matters is portrayed as a sign of insanity. Yes there are extremists that don't warrant being heard from, but more often than not, these people who shout about women's and gay rights have a point. (Perhaps they're not very good at laying out and productively arguing said opint, but generally there's a valid point there beneath the screaming and teh swearing.) Also just because you call otherpeople self-righteous, that doesn't automatically mean you yourself are above self-righteousness.
That said, while Stephen Fry's comment is a little misinformed (he should hang out with a few of the lesbians - and for that matter, straight women - I know), it's more useful as a discussion-opener than a reason to make him a pariah. There is some truth to his statement, and there is also plenty of idiocy. And it's pretty stupid to overlook either of them and gloat about it.
I wonder how much of Fry's statement though is poor choice of words/medium (maybe if he chose to explain himself in more than 140 characters per statement...) and how much is just him being a bit misinformed. Female sexuality as well as gay sexuality has demonstably evolved since the days of 'beats' (pardon my ignorance but who in the Western world still goes to beats?), and I think maybe Stephen Fry (who is a treasure nevertheless for different reasons) hasn't been hanging out with people from these post-beat generations (look at me Ma, I coined a lame term!).
At the same time though I don't know that I could realistically argue that the vast majority of gay women are just as fixated on sex as the vast majority of gay men. ...At the same time I certainly wouldnt argue that this fixation of sex is a sign of intrinsic inferiority or a justification to deride relationships between gay men. ...And for as long as gay people are reduced to second-class status, deprived of the right to marry (often with the excuse that they're naturally too promiscuous and inferior), its totally worth getting angry over random statements. But thats a whole other topic.
re "No free speech for even mild deviations from the PC line on wymmyn's or gay issues".
I love that any time these days a person blurts out something misogynist or homophobic, the trendy thing is to get angry at the 'PC police' that attacks them. There is this aura of 'thats right Im a lefty but Im no crazy like these oher lefties so you know Im always right in all matters and just generally better'. Also passion in civil matters is portrayed as a sign of insanity. Yes there are extremists that don't warrant being heard from, but more often than not, these people who shout about women's and gay rights have a point. (Perhaps they're not very good at laying out and productively arguing said point, but generally there's a valid point there beneath the screaming and the swearing.) Also just because you call other people self-righteous, that doesn't automatically mean you yourself are above self-righteousness.
That said, while Stephen Fry's comment is a little misinformed (he should hang out with a few of the lesbians - and for that matter, straight women - I know), it's more useful as a discussion-opener than a reason to make him a pariah. There is some truth to his statement, and there is also plenty of idiocy. And it's pretty stupid to overlook either of them and gloat about it.
I wonder how much of Fry's statement though is poor choice of words/medium and how much is just him being a bit misinformed. Female sexuality as well as gay sexuality has demonstably evolved since the days of 'beats' (pardon my ignorance but who in the Western world still goes to beats?), and I think maybe Stephen Fry (who is a treasure nevertheless for different reasons) hasn't been hanging out with people from these post-beat generations (look at me Ma, I coined a lame term!).
At the same time though I don't know that I could realistically argue that the vast majority of [gay] women are just as fixated on sex as the vast majority of [gay] men.
re "No free speech for even mild deviations from the PC line on wymmyn's or gay issues".
I love that any time these days a person blurts out something misogynist or homophobic, the trendy thing is to get angry at the 'PC police' that attacks them. There is this aura of 'thats right Im a lefty but Im no crazy like these oher lefties so you know Im always right in all matters and just generally better'. Also passion in civil matters is portrayed as a sign of insanity. Yes there are extremists that don't warrant being heard from, but more often than not, these people who shout about women's and gay rights have a point. (Perhaps they're not very good at laying out and productively arguing said point, but generally there's a valid point there beneath the screaming and the swearing.) Also just because you call other people self-righteous, that doesn't automatically mean you yourself are above self-righteousness.
Meantime, there is some truth to Fry´s statement, and there is also plenty of idiocy. And it's pretty stupid to overlook either of them and gloat about it.
I myself wonder how much of Fry's statement though is poor choice of words/medium and how much is just him being a bit misinformed. Female sexuality as well as gay sexuality has demonstably evolved since the days of 'beats' (pardon my ignorance but who in the Western world still goes to beats?), and I think maybe Fry (who, yes, is a treasure nevertheless for different reasons) hasn't been hanging out with people from these post-beat generations (look at me Ma, I coined a lame term!).
At the same time though I don't know that I could realistically argue that the vast majority of [gay] women are just as fixated on sex as the vast majority of [gay] men.
Bifocal: do you really need to use an ugly word like"bitch"? Makes you sound like a twisted woman hater.
Goran: Re: "any time these days a person blurts out something misogynist or homophobic, the trendy thing is to get angry at the 'PC police' that attacks them."
I was about to get riled by this - when gender warriors label every slight deviation from a narrowly defined PC line as "mysogynist', they end up placing a generally progressive person such as Fry in the same category as the commenter above who has no trouble in regarding women as "bitches". This is not helpful.
But then I read on and find you pretty much answer this yourself and I find myself in agreement.
Re: "Makes you sound like a twisted woman hater"
Don't you mean misogynist Lynden?
OK, you got me, Anon: my spelling is crap. Sorry!
Re: "I was about to get riled by this - when gender warriors label every slight deviation from a narrowly defined PC line as "mysogynist'"
But its alright for you though is it?
So you're the arbiter of gender justice... Take a look at yourself Mr Emperor, I cannot see any fancy "progressive" threads on your supercilious frame.
Post a Comment