Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Monday, 8 October 2012
On Caitlin Moran and feminism
The above (taken from the STFU Moffat tumblr site, which is doing lots of good stuff) created a Twitterstorm (are they still called that) based around Caitlin Moran, who is probably the British figurehead for feminism at the moment.
For a bit of context, Moran stated that she did not care that Dunham's hit TV show Girls contains no ethnic minorities, despite being set in New York, a city with a huge variety of people of different races. I haven't actually seen Girls, as I don't think it's been shown in Britain yet, so I don't know if the 'complete and utter lack of people of colour' refers just to the main characters, or to the cast as a whole. Either way, this seems like a strange case of casting.
The main issue that people took with Moran was that she stated that she didn't care about the race inequality in the show, prompting people to argue with her. Later, in an act of self-aggrandisement that would make Ricky Gervias baulk, proceeded to personally thank everyone that defended her.
The problem with Moran's statement is that she acts as if the role of race in the media doesn't matter. It does. Everything does, in terms of the media. Moran, as a feminist, should be aware that patriarchy is spread - partially, but not totally - through the portrayal of women in the media, the prime example being the prominence of rape culture.
In the case of Girls, which was frequently labelled the successor to Sex In The City, there's a belief that it may become one of those cult shows which people will want to model their life around - there's a consensus that the growth in popularity of coffee-shop socialising in the nineties was due to Friends (Friends wasn't quite a cult show in the strictest sense of the word - it had a devoted fanbase, but the fanbase was massive. It's not cult in the way Arrested Development is.) I'd imagine that Sex In The City prompted groups of women in fours to sit in cocktail bars and talk about their sex lives. Emulating lives lead on screen is a natural extension of escapism.
But Girls (as with all the shows mentioned above, in fact) the lack of a variety of race, though subconscious, will have an effect. All the above groups are populated entirely by white people - usually middle-class white people. What does this say to people - it says that the perfect group of friends you can have are white, middle-class, cis-gendered, straight, etc.
Moran's brand of feminism - I guess you could call it 'liberal feminism' - fails to address the theory of intersectionality - that social inequality is not simply found on one plain, and that gender inequality cannot be separated from the class struggle, the civil rights movement, the fight for homosexual rights - essentially, all fields of identity can, and should be considered.
I've touched on this once before on this blog, during a post about George Galloway's 'in the sex game' comments about Julian Assange. He claims to be a socialist, but, by being a misogynist, he simply cannot be - equality, in class terms, cannot just be for men.
Many people have had objections to Moran's liberal feminism, largely critquing her massively successful book How To Be A Woman. I haven't read it, so my views of it do come from blogs which have written about it. These blogs do quote heavily from the book, and usually give as much context as it is possible to give, so hopefully I am not too far off from what Moran meant, and won't look like too much of a fool.
From what I understand Moran regularly makes jokes about woman, jokes which you'd expect to find being made by someone who reached their twenties before poltical correctness emerged.* Jokes about woman being overly emotional, or scared of spiders, or being unable to drive. Essentially, jokes which force woman into a single hegemonic grouping. Moran's use of these jokes is an extension of the point which I made above - her ignorance of the cultural hegemony which allows patriarchy to survive.
Similarly, and this a point which I don't understand, she asks for over-the-top praise of male feminists. Treating a male feminist in this way, and worshipping his body in such a way, is problematic for a number of reasons. Us men shouldn't be congratulated for being pro-feminists/feminist allies - it should be expected. Certainly, not enough men are pro-feminists, but we should not be treated as superior to female feminists for being so.
Secondly, the sexualised imageary advances the stereotype of men pretending to be feminists so that they can sleep with women. Under no circumstances should this idea be popularised, as it would build a hollow-shell feminism which would crumble as soon as the men found a new way to talk women into bed.
I don't doubt that Moran is actually a feminist, and, like the poster on STFU Moffat, think that she has done of good job of pulling feminism back into the mainsteam (slightly) and helping to remove some of the stigma attached to calling yourself a feminist (although this still has far to go). The problem is that Moran has limited this burst of feminism to a type that ignores the factors surrounding gender equality.
My belief, for what it's worth, is that patriarchy is implicit in capitalism. Capitalism reduces people to the roles exploiters and victims on all levels; the standard bourgeoisie and proletariat system; the system of imperialist nations and colonies; and, in amongst all this, the relations between men and women. Women are tasked with a vast amount of unpaid labour - raising children, looking after the family home. This idea is being erroded, slowly, but it is still commonplace. By taking apart the class system, we can remove the patriarcal aspect of society. The women's rights movement and class struggle are interlinked. I would hate for Britain for transform into a socialist state, only for women to still be subjugated.
So when we embrace feminism, we should not embrace it as a singular, isolated cause. Feminism must be used in tandem with the struggle for equality of all people.
*Or, alternatively, on of those morons who think they're being clever by being willfully politically incorrect. People who think not being able to use the n-word in public is a disgrace to the concept of human rights. They can often be found saying things like 'You can't even say the word blackboard anymore!' I call this Clarkson Syndrome.
Monday, 20 August 2012
Galloway Is No Friend Of The Left
The left has a bit of a problem with George Galloway. On the one hand, he is a successful politican for the hard-left - he's been elected on a broadly anti-capitalist stance, both in the Labour party itself, and as an independent and as leader of his Respect party. He's a showman, someone to get the bored public talking about politcs again. On the subject of the Labour party, he clashed with the right-wing New Labour movement, again endearing himself to the left of the party.
But he's also a problem. He is perhaps too much of a showman, in politics for the attention and not to actually do good. Plus, any support he does get tends to evaporate pretty quickly. He's been tossed around consituencies across Britain, waiting to be brought back in for another few years before he's on his way again.
This argument was settled today as Galloway waded into the Julian Assange row - the British left can no longer welcome Galloway with open arms.
During a recent edition of his creepily-named Goodnight With George Galloway broadcast, he gave his opinion of the rape allegations made against Assange, he said:
But he's also a problem. He is perhaps too much of a showman, in politics for the attention and not to actually do good. Plus, any support he does get tends to evaporate pretty quickly. He's been tossed around consituencies across Britain, waiting to be brought back in for another few years before he's on his way again.
This argument was settled today as Galloway waded into the Julian Assange row - the British left can no longer welcome Galloway with open arms.
During a recent edition of his creepily-named Goodnight With George Galloway broadcast, he gave his opinion of the rape allegations made against Assange, he said:
"Let me tell you, I think that Julian Assange's personal sexual behaviour is something sordid, disgusting, and I condemn it. But even taken at its worst, the allegations made against him by the two women – and I'm not even going into their political connections, I'm going to leave that for others and for another day. I'm going to leave the fact that one, maybe both, of his accusers have the strangest of links to the strangest of people, organisations and states, I'm going to leave that entirely aside.
Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don't constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this.
Let's take woman A. Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know.
I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you're already in the sex game with them.
It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, "do you mind if I do it again?". It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning. . .
I don't believe either of those women, I don't believe either of these stories."
George Galloway, condoning and then dening rape. The comments he makes are too vague and general to be specifically about the Assange case itself (although his spiel does use this as a jumping off point). To try and bat around different definitions of the word rape is pointless - contrary to what Galloway claims, people do need to be asked before you have sex with them. Asking gains consent, and without consent - rape.
Reading between the lines, and another belief of Galloway's emerges - once a man has had sex with a woman once (in his words, they are 'in the sex game') he is entitled to have sex with her again, any time he wants - implying some sort of ownership.
Galloway's old-fashioned approach to relationships and feminism makes him part of the identity of the left which it should strive to leave behind. People on the right use the phrase 'dinosaur socialism' to refer to what they believe to be an outdated form of politics, but the real dinosaur socialism is the kind practised by Galloway - politics for the working man, emphasis on man. How are left wing movements going to build up a strong base of support if it intends to continue to welcome views like that of Galloway? Patriarchy is implicit in capitalism, but the equality of socialism means equality not just for men, but for women too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
