That this fact is to the detriment of all people should not be used to cover up the fact that by convention, it is misogyny, rather than misandry that is and always has been the dominant cultural motif, and that in the interests of a just society, there is rather more work to be done as regards how bias and stereotype impacts upon women’s lives than men’s. I mean in terms of the basics – violence, reproductive and sexual freedoms, literacy, employment, civil rights – rather than the right to wear a skirt without judgement, or not have to be the breadwinner.

Of course, all these things are related, but it is perhaps interesting that in regards to notions of stereotypical masculinity there appears to be more protest by and on behalf of men against such things as compulsory clothing conventions, heterosexuality, breadwinning, and liking football (say) than against the aspects of traditional masculinity that entail dominance and misogyny (to a more or less subtle degree).

The key, I believe, lies in acknowledging and understanding the causes and motivations of misogyny (in all genders), and in acknowledging and understanding why there is so much resistance to this, even among those with the best of intentions.

gender unfairness goes both ways. if i were a bloke, i’d be well pissed and be taking whole leaves out of the victorian feminists books. a true libertarian approach to being free of gender stereotypes should take into account the fact that it is unfair to an individual male that he cannot wear a skirt/wig/make-up without being thought ridiculous, or ‘effeminate’/wanting to be a woman/gay/trans-gendered. Maybe he just wants to wear a skirt- why do we have to speculate on his sexuality? Masculine and feminine are just constructs at the end of the day.

Why should men be automatically expected to be financially responsible for any children? Is she going to be pregnant all the time? Probably not, in which case there is no reason why a mother should not be expected to go out to work and have the father stay at home. What about non-biological parents – e.g. gay couples who adopt a child? which man should work?? a lesbian couple who have a child – which one has to go out to work after the baby has stopped being breast-fed?

Some may think my questions are a tad odd/or even irrelevant..but actually I think what post-feminism needs to be is really a focus on individual rights – the right of any individual of whatever sex to not be constrained because of their gender.

And what about the North Korean women of the world eh? When has he ever given a fuck about them? I want to see Nick Cohen advocating that we invade North Korea to liberate those women otherwise I think I’m quite right in assuming he has an obsession with Muslim women over N Korean women.

There was quite a long piece about it on Weekend Women’s Hour as well.#

At last…I must’ve shamed them into taking a stance

Although if you check post 91, you’ll see I was aware of the case. Was working Friday…and, that apart other than the 400 odd mile round trip, I would have certainly have attended. I hope Polly T was there though.

http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=3446

Hope you attended, MonkeyFish.

There was quite a long piece about it on Weekend Women’s Hour as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mdy46

Get this woman…tool of imperialist oppression?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/04/sudan-woman-trousers-trial

The Guardian’s given space to a CIA dupe who’s probably gonna bring on a carpet bombing raid because she’s been suckered into criticising men in the Sudan. If only she understood what a fool she was for wearing trousers…it creates just the kinda negative view of Islam that the warmongering hawks thrive on. Someone should cover her up…and keep her indoors.

I think you’re probably right.

Hold it mate…stop your tearing around the internet…just found this for you…a US “head up her own arse” feminist clarifies the issue…the reason they don’t need to bang on about third world oppression is….drumroll…it’s just part of “one great continuum”. So, I’m guessing that by fighting the good fight at home for say, equal executive pay…there’ll be a knock on effect which will lead to the eventual eradication of FGM…it’s so clear to me now!…(Slaps forehead in disgust!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/03/women-developing-world

Especially liked this comment…nailed it for me personally:

# AllyF

Yes, when I read Manu Ndulu describe a woman giving breach birth in the dirt outside a hospital, her baby suffocating to death, and those who attempt to publicise the scandal being prosecuted on pornography charges, I immediately think of the equivalent struggle for equal sports funding in the USA#

KB Player

Tell me about it..

Like Sunny, FR suffers from extreme “Harry’s Place Derangment Syndrome”, I know it all too well (guess what I’m associated with said site) , that’s why both of them are going on about “bombing Iran” like the embarassing loons they are.

There’s no point, honestly mate…

Laurie@Comment 45

I’m pretty disgusted with the Graun’s approach to feminism these days in general, apart from Sarah Ditum. More from Sarah, I say.

Do write a column on this, Laurie. I only get the Guardian now and then. Does it still have a women’s page? It did used to be THE feminist newspaper with lively, humorous feminism (eg from the sadly late Jill Tweedie) as well as the serious sort, but a lot of the battles it fought in the 70s and 80s have been won. Is there much in the way of interviews with the likes of Fadela Amara say? Instead of columns by female apologists for theocracy?

Neil comment@53

I wouldn’t wish to speak for Laurie, but I suspect, sadly, that she’s probably used to it by now. LC’s always been quite top-heavy with men, and I don’t think the male-female comment ratio on her own pieces is much better than it is here.

Well, that’s the political blogosphere for you. The ratio of men to women must be 10 to 1. Just like the world would be, if a load of female infanticiders and feticiders had their way.

Monkeyfish@comment 54

I distinctly remember one job (in Crouch End) when I had a fuck of a job knocking through the living room and dining room (she was quite shocked that there was so much dust!). Anyway, when we’d nearly finished I heard her on the phone to her mate.”Yes…it’s nearly over…soon be able to get back to normal….we’ve knocked through the living room and dining room into a one big….”
….and I’m standing there thinking “hang on…WE?…I thought I’d done it” I didn’t say anything because I hadn’t been paid yet, but it did set me thinking..just how far this attitude extended. Does she get her car back from the garage and tell her friends “I put in a new clutch” etc?

Kingsley Amis illustrated that turn of speech in The Russian Girl:-

He made allowance for the fact that the kitchen meant something special to Cordelia because she had built it herself. It was with much wonder that he had once heard a schoolmate’s landowning father profess to have ripped up a patch of woodland several acres in extent, shifted a road to the other side of a hill and stuck a bridge for two lines of traffic over the river at the bottom. Later study of language had suggested to him the name of rich person’s installative for this verbal category. . .

You’re just a bit thick aren’t you FlyingRodent? OK, here’s a simple little tale to illustrate how completely fallacious your “absence of evidence” charge is:

You come home and notice the back door’s open..”strange” you muse “I’m sure I locked it…never mind” You grab a cold beer and settle down to watch the telly. You press the remote…nothing happens…the telly’s not there…”shit” you exclaim..”I’ve been robbed”.

You ring the police…”I’ve been robbed…yes Ok…OK yep ..I’ll do that”

Three days later when a copper turns up you point at the space where the telly used to be and say “look..it’s gone”. He looks and says “but there’s nothing there”…”Yes I know” you reply “It’s been stolen”…..”But there’s nothing there?” he replies….”Yes I know, I’ve been robbed”…he looks again and says “Yes, but there’s nothing there”…he looks at you like you’re crazy…

The point of this little parable, Rodent, is: You’re the copper.

You want evidence of a lack of condemnation. When I reply “but there isn’t any…or at least not enough…that’s the point”…you say “Where’s the evidence?”….I reply “There isn’t any…that’s the whole point”…You reply “Yes but where’s the evidence?”….I reply….”There…blah blah fuckin blah…..

Eventually, you triumphantly announce….”I told you so, you haven’t got any evidence”

It’s me that should be banging my head against the wall Rodent. But I’m a balanced sort of individual…instead, I ask you repeatedly for evidence that I’m wrong and there is indeed widespread and popular support out there for a campaign against abuse. You don’t provide any…then you announce…

#Monkeyfish, why don’t you grab a cold beer while I tear around the internet for you looking for examples of people Condemning Things, so that you can judge whether the Things have been Condemned to your satisfaction? If not, I’ll just scoot right along and find more examples you can reject as excessively conditional or insufficiently furious. #

hmmmm…you’ve had a few days now…why, if it’s so plentiful would you need to tear around? Surely a well informed feminist like yourself could have linked to a few examples of this well supported, mainstream campaign in a matter of seconds?

#….but you either accept that this tedious game of Condemnation Bingo is a pointless exercise, or you don’t. Clearly, you don’t.#

Dunno…I’d have thought that to play “Condemnation Bingo” a few examples of condemnation were required…why not fetch a few?…then it’s eyes down for a full house…get a few convincing ones and I might even shout Bingo….but for all your smart-arsed bingo sohistry…we’ve never actually played…when we have I’ll comment on whether or not I think it’s pointless. You’ve prejudged my reaction before I’ve ever played the game…I’m really starting to be seriously convinced that the callers taken the balls home…if indeed they ever existed.

Well, that all makes perfect sense.

I have stated repeated that I’m willing to listen to new evidence…virtually begged for new evidence…where is it?

We seem to have full communication breakdown here. Here I’ve spent all this time saying that I never participate in Condemnathons – that they’re pointless, since they only lead to more Condemnathons; that they’re almost never honestly used, and that even if they were, Condemning Things on demand has no impact on reality whatsover…

…But this doesn’t seem to be getting through. Did you imagine I would respond with Monkeyfish, why don’t you grab a cold beer while I tear around the internet for you looking for examples of people Condemning Things, so that you can judge whether the Things have been Condemned to your satisfaction? If not, I’ll just scoot right along and find more examples you can reject as excessively conditional or insufficiently furious.

Well, cheers for the invitation to bang my head against a brick wall, but you either accept that this tedious game of Condemnation Bingo is a pointless exercise, or you don’t. Clearly, you don’t.

#Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, so long as you recognise that speculation about the absence of evidence makes for very weak arguments#

Oh that’s just pathetic. You are getting yourself mixed up here; conflating an absence of evidence with a lack of evidence…I’m assuming you meant to type “lack”. There is no lack of evidence since in this case an absence of evidence, or the absence of regular condemnatory articles and concerted campaigns from feminist groups are exactly what Cohen, James are citing in support of their contentions.

As you are so given to triumphantly concluding: ““Extreme Logic Fail”

#If somebody doing that showed willingness to examine new evidence and to alter their opinions accordingly, these would be intellectually honest and honourable positions.#

Now this is getting just a little tiresome Rodent. I have stated repeated that I’m willing to listen to new evidence…virtually begged for new evidence…where is it? What I get instead are ill formed ad hominem ramblings, strange formulations that you suppose pass for logical argument and dissembling. For what must be the seventh or eighth time now…please give me some new evidence. As I’ve already said, I find Neil Robertson’s somewhat scant, selective and unconvincing. Stop playing the logician or the polemicist, you’re sadly deficient in both roles and let me see the evidence Rodent.

While your looking for some cast your eyes over Heresiarch’s response…maybe he’s just a bloodthirsty neocon as well.

#Of course, people who are rather more interested in fragging their political foes might find themselves launching into hilariously bellicose attacks on the vague concept of anti-poverty writers, Condemning! a series of unnamed individuals based entirely on speculation and deliberate misrepresentation. If you found yourself doing that, you would be Nick Cohen and you should be hauled off to a rubber room and injected with thorazine.#

I refer you to my previous statement on your shortcomings as a polemicist.

#To repeat, if the foundation of a journalist’s argument is Persons (x) do not Condemn (y) often enough, ergo they are bastards then you belong on the BBC’s Have Your Say or FreeRepublic, not in the print press. Decent journalism should be able to pass the laugh test.#

indeed it should.

Nothing wrong with a bit of speculation, so long as you recognise that speculation about the absence of evidence makes for very weak arguments – arguments that are significantly weaker than that presented in Neil Robertson’s post, which does marshall evidence. If somebody doing that showed willingness to examine new evidence and to alter their opinions accordingly, these would be intellectually honest and honourable positions.

Of course, people who are rather more interested in fragging their political foes might find themselves launching into hilariously bellicose attacks on the vague concept of anti-poverty writers, Condemning! a series of unnamed individuals based entirely on speculation and deliberate misrepresentation. If you found yourself doing that, you would be Nick Cohen and you should be hauled off to a rubber room and injected with thorazine.

To repeat, if the foundation of a journalist’s argument is Persons (x) do not Condemn (y) often enough, ergo they are bastards then you belong on the BBC’s Have Your Say or FreeRepublic, not in the print press. Decent journalism should be able to pass the laugh test.

But, if we dealing with writers who identified themselves as taking an interest in global poverty (were self-described pro-prosperity writers in fact), you might start to think there was something amiss when sub-Saharan Africa was largely ignored altogether and your mind might start to speculate on the cause of that omission.

Your question about what should be done is the crux of the matter, although I think we can rest assured that the chances of clitoris-related blanket bombing is fairly remote.
Oil-related, yes – damaged young females, sadly, no.

I agree with FR that a condemathon is unlikely to save future generations from a similar, painful fate but the emotional impact of FMG operates at a level that soon overrides the more capricious frontal cortex.

Well, there’s significantly worse poverty in sub-Saharan Africa than there is in Glasgow, but only a lunatic would conclude that someone who wrote mainly about poverty in Glasgow was automatically some champagne-snorting Hooray Henrietta urinating contempt into the pleading faces of the African poor.

@MMN

She accuses “her sisters” of quite disgraceful attitudes.

Have you read any of Julie Bindel’s columns? She accuses everyone of Quite Disgraceful Attitudes.

More generally, I’m heartily sick of this idea that everybody has a duty to Condemn Things loudly whenever some jumped-up Observer columnist demands it. Contrary to what Nick and Clive would have you believe, Condemning Things does not in fact magically resolve Things for the better.

People might notice that Israel/Palestine, for instance, has prompted lots of ostentatious Condemnations from western writers, and yet I think a case could be made that the main effect has been to encourage both parties to believe that the whole world is right behind them/poised to cheer on their annihilation, with violent results.

It should be patently obvious to all by now that Condemnathons exist purely to marginalise and discredit political foes, with the repression at stake a distant second. That’s why Nick and Clive spend so much time bitching about “mainstream opinion” and “liberals” rather than a series of named individuals… Or, indeed, shutting up about those distracting allegorical liberals and just talking about the repression itself.

And as it happens, Larry’s point is a good one – lots of humanitarian workers will tell you how infuriating it is to have their reports conscripted to support some insane military adventure. Lots of people got their fingers burnt over the Iraq debacle, for instance, and it is entirely right and proper that such people wouldn’t want their campaigning work co-opted into entirely counterproductive wingnut schemes for glory.

Yeah..I do..well at least on the days when when I’m not clubbing seal clubs with Nick Cohen, throwing over-ripe vegetables at my basement full of sex slaves or plotting to invade Middle Eastern countries.

There are some women who think FGM is an issue. The Iraq and Kurdish Womans Rights Organisation for instance. I expect there are many others. Whether they count as famous, or even feminists, I don’t know, but I think they should, don’t you?