The F Word

Although, growing up, it was a word I was aware of, it wasn’t one I used. Nobody else I knew used it either, except in a broadly technical sense, and even then, very occasionally. Perhaps standards have changed, and times certainly have, but I hear it everywhere I go these days. There’s no escaping it. Every newspaper, every magazine, blog and publication is f- this and f- that: the sheer saturation is overwhelming. I’m starting to wonder if people have nothing else on their minds. I’m talking, of course, about feminism.

Until about a week and a half ago, I had a pretty solid grasp of feminist polemic. To auto-generate your own blog piece, just grab any rant from the Daily Mail on immigration, CTRL+H the words “black people” with “men” and then top-and-tail it with some patronising assumptions about how billions of people are magically silenced and only able to communicate via white middle-class over-educated underachievers. You don’t need to confine it to stuff about women, either – just lump in anything that white-middle-class-guilt-ridden-lefties are angry about and you’re good to go.

Then something very strange started happening: the general shrieking cacophony of the popular press started to make sense. It’s not that my own opinions have changed, so much as everyone else has miraculously stopped being absurd. It all started at the Guardian.

Deborah Orr’s refreshingly even opinion-piece about the “Slutwalk” marches last Thursday raised eyebrows, even among Guardian regulars.

“The SlutWalkers say: “Stop telling me – Don’t get raped. Tell Men – Don’t rape.” I’m sorry, but that’s facile. Rape is a crime, with a minimum five-year sentencing guideline. That’s one of the ways in which men are “told” not to rape.”

Orr considers both sides of the debate – the ways in which the clothes we wear signal our intentions, or maybe signal intentions that we don’t mean to give, while simultaneously condemning any suggestion that a victim was “asking for it” (“even linguistically, that’s an absolute non sequitur”).

“Excellent article on a very sensitive issue”, says one commenter. “Good thoughtful stuff” says another. “Not very often we get well balanced and properly argued essays on this subject, but that’s what we have here”, and even “a balanced and sensible article on CIF. Whatever next !!!!”

Meanwhile, over at The Times, an opinion piece published two days later – a rarity, since the f-word only features there about once a year – compared the lives of women in the 1970s to our lives now, and what further changes need to be made to make our lives more comfortable. Again, it eschewed the idea that it was all some grand conspiracy designed to oppress women (and other “minorities”), and focussed instead on the practical trials of modern living. The responses, particularly, were thought-provoking.

One responder notes that men are increasingly keen to take an equal share in childcare arrangements, but “the UK’s toxic combination of very long working hours and low or non-existent salary replacement rates for paternity and parental leave make further engagement by men very difficult.”

In response to an unrelated article on the same letters page, someone remarks, “I am dismayed how women and girls seem to have become either passive spectators in their own lives or riddled with angst over their appearance, their work/life balance or their children’s performance, as if their own lives are defined by this. Has any woman ever been remembered for these things?”

Not to be outdone, Deborah Orr bounced back with a further piece on 15 June, this time addressing why women who have benefitted from feminism’s gains refuse to identify as “feminist” – and it’s not just a fear of dungarees.

“The very fact that some feminists are so willing to accept that women don’t want the label for such superficial reasons, rather than crediting women with more profound intellectual discomfort, is an indication that even feminist attitudes can sometimes be dismissive of women and their legitimate concerns.”

Again, the article was popular with readers, inviting feedback such as “that was very thoughtful and well balanced” and “another fine well balanced article” – though admittedly there was more debate as to the individual issues raised, such as how much feminism achieved in the 20th century (and how much changed out of simple circumstance). Plus, as one commenter put it: “We have to affix a label to every damn thing these days. I don’t want a label. I am a human being.”

Even that bastion of middle-class-leftie screeching, The Independent – which usually sounds like that hysterical “WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN???” woman from The Simpsons – toned down its usual bats*** insanity for two recent articles. Sarah Sands, writing last Sunday, tackled the old lioness herself – Germaine Greer – and some of her more cringe-worthy suppositions:

“The way in which we respond to Germaine Greer gives our age away. Those of us who remember Greer in her prime of influence respect her as an old warrior. My daughter’s generation regard her as a mysterious relic. Her analysis of the female plight makes no sense. Young women can kick ass if they need to, but most of the time their relationships with men have never been easier. Female oppression feels as distant as slavery.”

The article carried on quite sensibly until the final paragraph, when it lost it altogether:

“And yet we dismiss Greer at our peril. My generation of women, who came after Greer, were like John Major to her Mrs Thatcher. We were technocrats, rather than ideologues. Have women advanced much as a result? The world is still run largely by men for men. I reckon we still need a fearless, offensive Aussie shouting her mouth off. We should hold in reserve her angry proposition: If you can’t join men, then you might as well beat them.”

Oh dear.

Luckily Yasmin Alibhai-Brown was on hand with her article the following day on the Slutwalk:

“Natasha Walter, author of Living Dolls and the conscience of modern feminism, is also unconvinced: ‘[This protest] is still defining women in terms of their sexuality – this idea that what we’re saying is that we’re proud to be sluts.'”

Although it’s less even-handed than Deborah Orr’s Guardian piece, it is at least interesting and thought-provoking and not completely daft. I’m not particularly interested in that particular subject – it was really the way it was covered in the media that I find fascinating, since it’s controversial and contentious and would normally be the breeding ground for nonsensical babble on all sides.

Perhaps the proliferation of feminist articles in the “quality” dailies lately points to a wider picture in which we’re finally sick of the culture in which everyone (male and female) is judged on their superficial appearance. Regardless of my general avoidance of feminist rhetoric, I was always appalled by those American Apparel ads and degrading rap videos and the general media messages that tell kids that their whole value as human beings is wound up in how much useless stuff they own and how sexually available they are. That’s not a “woman’s issue” but an “everyone issue”. Call it what you want. Use the f-word if you want – just as long as everyone’s as sensible as Deborah Orr.

Maybe what’s really happening is that those issues are being reclaimed from the fringes of the hard left and brought to the middle ground where more people are paying attention. If they carry on like this, I’m all ears.

2 comments on “The F Word

  1. I think the Slutwalk was good in general, but I’m not sure I’d have joined them on it. I think that the word Slut is a word designed to criticise women for being sexually promiscuous and it’s intention is to put women’s sexuality in it’s place- it’s place being where men decide it should be- aka governed by them not by the women themselves. As much as I dislike female sexual exploitation, I also dislike being told what to do in my private sex life- especially since the rules are different for men. We have access to contraception these days, therefore it should follow that women are free to be as promiscuous as men should they choose to be. We should also reserve the right to dictate how much sex we have, who we have it with, what it means and when and where it happens. When a society looks the other way or blames a woman for being raped due to her clothing, it’s unjust. It is the same thing as saying that if you advertise something expensive and the person cannot afford it, then they have every right to steal it because the advertisers should not have advertised it if it wasn’t available to everyone/aka the man who wants it regardless of whether they had enough money to afford it. Women are ‘too expensive’ for any man she is not attracted to- aka they may not expect to have sex with her. It’s so simple, but even the police can be unable to grasp this simple obvious fact, depending on what culture they are from.

    • I can see both sides: in principle, I agree with you – but equally, there are signs all over the underground with “DO NOT ADVERTISE YOUR VALUABLES TO THIEVES”, telling people to keep iphones etc concealed because theft of personal belongings is now the fastest-rising crime. I don’t think any police officer would say, “You stupid cow! You asked to be robbed for flashing your phone!”, but at the same time it does seem sensible to try to mitigate risks if there’s any slight chance of doing so.

      An example, I was chatting with one friend about how the only people ever to harrass me in the street were market researchers and street beggars, and she said that she sometimes got yelled at if she walked down a certain street late at night. When she said the name of the street, I just said, “OMG, girl, why the hell are you walking down that street late at night?” It’s like the thugs who hang out there are just looking for a victim, and if you happen to be a woman you might get sexually assaulted and if you happen to be a man, you’ll get stabbed and robbed. It’s only ever the fault of the attackers, but sometimes people can be a bit like this:

      So, while I do actually think the politicians comments were fair, I equally don’t like the double-standard when it comes to referring to women as “sluts”. Actually, the men I know tend to refer to highly promiscuous men as “man-whores” rather than “studs” and have the same “eww cooties” reaction, so I guess that’s also “equality” as far as that’s concerned, which again is fine with me – especially since it’s in the context of accepting that, whether or not they approve, it’s really none of anybody’s business but the people themselves.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s