Both Blogged or Otherwise, both in Theory and Application

I was planning a write-up of some kind (hideously late though it inarguably would have been) but it turns out that Penny Red beat me to the punch:

Fashionably late to the party, this week I went to a massively interesting liberal bloggers’ event at the Guardian. It was fantastic to finally meet people I’ve spent so long sparring with online; that awkward shuffling when a roomful of geeky people who know each other well but haven’t actually met and are trying, shyly, to match faces to cyberspace handles felt pleasingly zeitgeist as always. It was the second part of the evening, the panel on women’s blogs, feminist blogs and their interaction with the rest of the blogsphere, that really got my hackles raised.

Basically, that was it for me as well. Entirely. That was my evening. The only point at which our views diverge is upon the exact nature of the annoyance posed, which is a pretty ineluctable given that she’s a feminist and insofar as I can be classified along such lines I’m far more the post-. The consequences of the feminist movement and both its successes and failures have left a world far more complex and variable than that which preceded it and all that.

In short I found the second half of the discussion by far the weaker. I think the greatest error was people asking the Freudian “What to feminist bloggers want?” when such a question is as great an absurdity as asking “What do liberal blogger want?”, if not more so. There is a vast amount of diversity within that ideology and a vast amount of different people who have been pinned with the tag, so expecting to nail down what all of them, to a writer, desire is an obvious impossibility.

As far as I could tell the assembled views of the panel were simple and easily appreciable. They consisted of more credit, more attention, less abuse and more interaction.

Apparently the feminist blogosphere (I detest that term as much as Penny does yet can find no superior) despises men assuming that they will become their leaders. This appears to be a wide-spread concern but, as far as I can tell, has not actually been attempted. If evidence of as much is forthcoming then I shall revise my position but I’ve never met anyone expressing an interest in leading the feminists in any direction and struggle to see why anyone would.

The matter of abuse is something which we (that is to say, SES) have had some experience. Indeed the only commenteers we seemed able to attract in our early days were people delivering death threats, posting images of recently evacuated foecal carcass and so on. As one of the bloggers present at the Liberal Conspiracy who had “Lived online as a man” for a year had found this is in no way limited to female bloggers, it is simply a matter of the terms of abuse shifting as gender appropriate (although “Bitch”, to a degree, can cover either). As far as I am concerned the best form of moderation there is is minimal moderation. If the consequences hurt anyone’s feelings then I suggest that they read up on the Stoics. I assure Penny and anyone else concerned that if this leads them to deem me a “Typical man” then this displays more of their prejudices than of my character. As with most earnest insults.

So with that criticism of the myn dealt with I suppose I should respond in kind by making two points concerning feminist blogs in Britain, both of which are informed by some consideration of the state of affairs across the Atlantic, before a third which concludes matters:

Insularity

(Or, when referring to America, “Incestuousness”.)

This was something which concerned me immensely concerning British feminist blogs but we’ve had three feminist bloggers comment here this week and they seem to make up the considerable majority of commenteers here (at least for now). So really, I can’t complain. Not least because otherwise they might all leave, which would upset us all immensely.

But certainly I had heard little from the feminists prior to the aforementioned gathering. And the state across the pond is simply dire. There vast blogs can be found with thriving communities that consist seemingly entirely of feminist women. This is not terrible in itself but it seems that for the most part it seems that this results in views supporting the feminist ideology being provided and then getting a plethora of reactions (generally shocked or outraged or bitterly amused about something) from hundreds of feminists. All saying nearly the same thing and generally coming from much the same position.

Occasionally there is a moment of schism such as whenever someone mentions pornography and the distinction between Dworkin acolytes and contemporary thinkers becomes stark, or when the Male Rights types show up or somebody mentions male mutilation standard in America while the treatment of Egyptian girls is under discussion (the latter two often coincide, and fair play to the otherwise platform devoid chaps) but really, it’s mostly unproductive noise focused around ideological consensus and resulting rhetorical hegemony.

Which has its purpose, I suppose, but if their interest is smashing the patriarchy achieves roughly fuck all. The result is a group of people with a view points of considerable divergence but largely the same set of views agreeing on almost everything and occasionally breaking out into a furious flame-war. I suppose that most involved enjoy themselves, but upon their own terms it doesn’t really get anyone anywhere. For instance, it fails completely in getting any men involved besides the (very occasional) male feminist and the Men’s Rights who come there to get some attention from the only people who really respond (albeit by telling them to GTFO and stop bringing the males into a discussion not about them), or just to troll their enemies hard (male rights advocacy is something which warrants its own article, suffice it to say that they’re a diverse bunch).

This suits the sort of segregationist feminists who wish to divide from masculinity and males altogether and form their own gender seperatist lesbian colonies but these are perhaps the least desirable and (thankfully) amongst the smallest faction of feminists around (even Dworkin suggested remaining within the patriarchy, albeit only in order to “begin to tear male dominance to pieces, to pull it apart, to vandalize it, to destabilize it, to mess it up, to get in its way, to fuck it up.”) The rest of the ideology presumably desires some sort of interaction and if it happens elsewhere I’ve seen scanty evidence.

The phrase “Preaching to the choir” comes to mind and much though it is over-used it does seem apt.

So what can British bloggers do to evade this fate? What they’re doing already, for the most part (and I say that, of course, objectively and entirely apart from the desire to see our “Recent Comments” bar remain in motion) but also trying to get more men engaged at all costs. Sunny, our host at the Liberal Conspiracy do, has apparently described himself as a feminist; but is amongst very sparse company. The F Word has no male contributers and as far as I am aware neither does the Carnival of Feminists. Needless to say the same is true of Feministe, Feministing and all the other large collaborative American feminist blogs. This I find curious: men make up half the population yet are represented as 0% of the feminist writers on all of the mainstream feminist blogs. Bizarre. So much for “You don’t have to be a woman to be a feminist” (always, I note, with that emphasis). It seems that this possibility is not a reality, or at least not to a great enough extent to merit inclusion of any instances. Perhaps the quality of these rarities is sub-standard? I find this curious too. Let us not forget that the work of any female feminist can be at least matched by Mill’s On Women.

If such establishments wish to encourage male feminism then simply offering them a platform would not be a bad place to start, as would simply not writing articles such as this which are both intimidating in length (as you can probably tell brevity is entirely my specialty) and also seemingly place the emphasis entirely upon what must be done by men (”Sarcasm and satire aren’t always easy to get across, so it’s probably safer not to start flinging around gendered insults” it is insisted, as if women are entirely incapable of telling when my calling them “moronic wenches” is in jest (always) or earnest (never) and should take no effort to improve their observational and interpersonal skills if they are not. No, the fault here lies purely with the men).

Instead they should simply let people turn up, refrain from treating anyone as if they don’t belong and for the sake of the stars turn off comment moderation. This blog has barely any comments as it is, prior to our current comments policy (don’t mention Oliv*r K*mm or H*rry’s Pl*ce and you can stay up unedited) and the removal of com-mod it was effectively dead. I am aware that many feminist websites already have thriving communities, but these doubtless could become expanded upon by reducing restrictions. A considerable number of people (myself unquestionably included) are so opinionated the prospect of having to await “Approval” for their views being plastered across a webpage is considerably irksome.

Finally there is the matter of linking to feminists and so on. This is not the sort of matter which I or any other blogger I know of (or can envision) does by quota. If something worthwhile is seen that seems to warrant distribution then that is exactly what is done. So far the only time that this has happened to my recollection with a feminist site was Penny Red’s, which both Douglas and I have linked to and I’ve commented on a fair few times. Now that we’re getting incomings and comments from blogs of that nature doubtless reciprocation will follow so that all seems to be in hand from this front. As far as I can tell this is the only way to proceed and really, it’s how all bloggers interact. Nothing ideological about it, purely social.

Ineffectuality

(There’s nothing like a word you’ve just invented to form the central foundation of a critique.)

Again, let us compare the state of our nation (how wary I am of that phrase) to that of those across the Atlantic Puddle in terms of this ideology and its accompanying movement. In America when women seemed threatened with abortion being restricted, limited or outlawed a few years ago feminists marched a million women on Washington.

Never mind the national news in America, that filled copious column inches here in Britain. It was a remarkable event and a sterling achievement, one that made apparent the often disregarded political clout of the pro-choice movement. This demonstration staged something of a reset upon the terms of debate, which had previously seemed to dangle the prospect of a move upon Roe versus Wade by some political authority or other, a goal overwhelmingly coveted by the substantial political force of the theologically inspired far-right, which at that time had thrown its support whole-heartedly behind the wholly dominant Republican Party. Afterwards the reactionary forces were forced into if not a retreat then at least a lull. Their hope for statist dominance over the female body faded, if not their desire.

Now let us be fair to British feminists. The population of America is far vaster than our own. Even including such conditions as inter-state travel we must accept that they had a far larger pool to fish activists from. But with that in mind surely it would be reasonable to set the point of comparison at a modest ten thousand women marching upon Westminster?

Well this year Nadine “Mad Nad” Dorries spearheaded efforts to reduce the number of weeks after which an abortion could legally occur. I was aware of her efforts since I read newspapers. I was aware of opposition because it was included within them. I knew that Nadine Dorries was a nut because of Ben Goldacre and his glorious blog and its numerous critiques of her output. I had seen her case demolished in Penny Red here where she matches each of the 24 “reasons” provided by Dorries with a far better one. I knew Goldacre from the Guardian and knew of Red through a mutual friend.

But there was no immense protest that I could not have helped but notice. There was nothing that demostrated widespread opposition in a fashion that was impossible to dispute. There was not five digits of feminists joining Brian Haw on the Westminster lawn of Parliament Square.

This is entirely inadequate. It is far from sufficient to offer information to those interested, attention must be seized. This can not be achieved through a few blog posts, but only through a campaign. This is not the sort of affair that British feminism appears to have achieved in this decade, and it shall almost certainly have to before the decade is out.

There was a great fuss made at the Liberal Conspiracy meet (and perhaps elsewhere, I haven’t been bothered to check) over who was and deserved to take “Credit” for the Commons rejection of the proposed increase of the limit. But as far as I’m concerned the British Public is owed the most as, above all else, the most important reason for the abortion laws remaining the same is that there are more Labour MPs than Conservative MPs. After the next election there will be more Conservative MPs than Labour MPs and the measure will be passed.

Is that as inevitable as I presented it? Not entirely, but given the current approach of the feminists (not to mention the Labour Party) of Britain I would suggest that, barring some unlikely shift of strategy, that is what shall occur. This is partially the consequence of the aforementioned insularity but partially the result of the weakness of British feminism. The reasons for this are numerous but I would argue that it is largely the consequence of it being less necessity for its existence here than elsewhere.

It is at this point that I can feel fists clenching but this view has been under consideration for some time.

Redundancy & Malaprop

It is often argued that Thatcher killed off British socialism. This incorrect, that was Callaghan. Thatcher killed British feminism. Once the reactionary party of Britain had been led by a woman, a woman unashamdly of the petty bourgeois, no less, and it was a woman who had kept them in power for well over a decade there was no longer any hope for the ideology which asserted that society was based around the oppression of one gender by another. Had it perhaps been the progressives of Labour or even the Liberals who had placed a PM into power then feminism in Britain would have stood a chance. It wasn’t. It was Thatcher. It was the Conservative Party. She thought that men were weak, she fought them, she won. As matters stand feminists are trying to forge a movement in a nation where loathsome organisations offer better insurance premiums to those in possession of a vagina; since apparently that renders them “Better drivers” (yes, all of them) and Polly Toynbee often digresses from her polite statist leftism to tell us how useless her husband is.

Amongst many, many others.

Yes, the malaise within British feminism is far from confined to their treatment of the internet. As far as solutions for this are concerned I have nothing to offer. This is because it is here that I consider the conventional feminist viewpoint to disintegrate: the patriarchy was a model in existence but has since seen partial collapse while the cultural lie of men and women being somehow innately distinct in ways that are utterly inherent has, largely remained strong. Requiring men to be perceived as inferior in certain ways as severely as women were and (in many ways) still are; although often less challenged. This is a state of affairs that has left both men and women treated injustly; but is a system so complex and convoluted that any understanding which begins from the premise of master and servant can not stand a fraction of a chance of hoping to depict the situation accurately. Any that hopes to stamp out misogyny and focuses on as much is forgetting misandry, and thus in reverse.

This differs in numerous, obvious ways with feminism; but perhaps not as greatly as may be assumed intuitively. There are a number of shared aims and intentions. I agree with much of the feminist agenda. I agree, above all else, with this:

After generations of struggle, we are still trying to build a better world, one where gender does not dictate behaviour and assumptions and opportunities.

but struggle to see how any collective following an ideology named “Feminism” can succeed in “laying the foundations” for as much. I’m willing to stage an attempt at such a venture with anyone willing to engage but I question the logic of approaching it using the exact same vehicle that tore through the Patriarchy. Especially when the consequences, indeed the tools, of that messy demolition included a surge of caustic misandry that presently coats our culture like some nauseating fume.

I further agree entirely with the rational feminist criticism of the prejudice based around what amounts to a different set of genitals. I oppose the idea of genders for much the same reason I do nations: they are cultural notions with merit but which cause problems in total disproportion to their value. They belong in the ever increasing pile of obsolete ideas generated by cultural progress throughout history. As ideas they are entirely within the power of humans to alter as appropriate or else completely dispose of. This may be a struggle but it is unquestionably a possibility. But this is not the sort of endeavour that can be undertaken by a movement which, from its name to its membership, is entirely suited more to one gender than the other. It requires engagement of both and mass support capable of overwhelming entirely existing social norms, neither of which has been achieved by feminism previously or seems to be a plausible aim for the future. What is required is that feminists live up to this talk of women being “Collaborative rather than competitive” in destroying the crux of all such preconceptions alongside their entirely required comrades. It seems that some have realised this; but with a mentality that sees man as the oppressor and woman his victim hamstringing their understanding of contemporary existence there is little hope of immense progress.

So the best offer I can make here is that the feminists stop being as much and start tearing down the gender roles alongside the partners that without they can never accomplish such an epic feat. Those currently designated as “men”.

Or at least get a few more feet on the streets and kick up a proper fuss.