These t-shirts are awful, and would mark out the wearer as an absolute tit, but the people making this fuss really need to lighten the hell up. They aren’t doing their cause any favours by living up to all the ‘po-face’ stereotypes.

Spiked is being its usual contrarian self; that is, find out what annoys liberals and then try to wind them up by being provocative. Ignore this tiresome lot, everyone else does.

but the people making this fuss really need to lighten the hell up.

Why? If someone saw a t-shirt saying ‘hey nigger, clean my shoes’ – you’d say the same would you?

Spiked is a direct continuation of the “Living Marxism” magazine, if you didn’t know…it advocates right-wing corporatist libertarianism.

Worth making the point that the T-shirts have not been censored, or banned as far as I know. The firm has simply withdrawn them from sale. No laws were broken in designing, creating, distributing, selling, buying or wearing these T-shirts, nor have any been invoked in seeking to have them removed from sale. In a week when Chris Huhne has called families “lazy” for not shopping around to get better prices out of their energy providers, women and men who have a low tolerance for misogyny have exercised our power as consumers (or potential consumers) to tell a business that we won’t buy such toxic messages. The business responded. That – we’re told – is how markets work.

If someone really wants to advertise their misogyny across their chest they can print their own T-shirt, with their own special slogan. It’ll help the rest of us know who to avoid.

Yes, I do know. I used to be a supporter of the magazine when it was a left-wing publication, many years ago. We always liked to be different and annoying; the thing is that then we worked within an ideological framework which kept things more or less within bounds. Now, having lost any idea of political direction, there is nothing to stop this — to be honest — tiresome contrarianism from going anywhere.

First of all, I’m pretty sure that Topman pulled these shirts, rather than them being banned, so it’s totally the company’s decision in any case. I suspect they simply decided that the potential sales of these t-shirts weren’t worth the negative publicity.

Regarding the t-shirts themselves, I agree that some might find them offensive, I just wonder where the line ought to be drawn. For example, I’ve seen a lot of people wearing a t-shirt saying “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them”, which is obviously supposed to be in jest, but you could argue with them on the same grounds. Similarly, there are couple of t-shirts that exploit the north/south divide, one that abuses northerners, and one that abuses southeners.

I don’t think any of those above examples are anything to get upset about, they’re all meant as friendly humour. On the other hand, if I saw a t-shirt like Sunny suggests @3, I’d absolutely flip out.

‘If someone really wants to advertise their misogyny across their chest they can print their own T-shirt, with their own special slogan.’

Surely: ‘If someone really wants to advertise his misogyny across his chest he can print his own T-shirt, with his own special slogan.’

@ Joe

This is my point. People make jokes about getting a woman they supposedly love and punching or raping her. Why does the responsibility fall onto the victim of the joke? Why is women (or indeed men) not finding it funny the problem? As Sunny says, replace sex with race and I think few would be telling the person objecting to try harder to get the joke.

@ Pendantry Corner

I’m not sure it is. Not all women are pro-women, just as not all men are anti. People like Brendan O’Neill want to divide and make it a woman versus man issue. In reality, this, like many feminist matters doesn’t fall along gender lines: it’s non-sexists versus sexists.

@ 9 Frances Ryan

Out of interest, did that t-shirt actually say anything about domestic abuse? The photo I saw didn’t make it clear.

(Oh, and I think Pedantry Corner is trying to make a grammatical point due to the mistaken belief that it’s wrong to use “they” as singular.)

I certainly agree that these T Shirts are offensive – and also agree with Sunny’s point that people (in some contexts) seem to have a higher tolerance level for misogyny than racism. They shouldn’t be banned – but I’m glad they were pulled.

Double standards here surely? – barely a peep out of the feminists when the burqa, was discussed at great length on LC (particularly the ban in France) – yet a T-shirt that will probably only ever be worn by a handful of knobheads in Essex provokes moral outrage.

To my mind the burqa, or more accurately the ancient misogyny that drives it, is a much bigger problem to women than a few infantile slogans – for one thing, the offending t-shirts can be quickly be assigned to the dustbin – pity we can’t do the same with the oppressive burqa.

@ 12 a&e

Weren’t there a fair number of feminists demanding that the burqa be outlawed? I remember noticing at the time that the “ban the burqa” side mainly consisted of a strange combination of gender rights campaigners and people who hated Muslims. In any case, Frances and the handful of commenters on this page are not in any way accountable for what other people identifying as feminist may have said on LC a few months ago. Also: whataboutery.

@ Chaise

Thanks! It had ‘I’m so sorry but…’ as a slogan and then a list of phrases that are common ‘excuses’ for domestic violence, such as ‘You provoked me’ and ‘I was drunk’ .

@3 “Why? If someone saw a t-shirt saying ‘hey nigger, clean my shoes’ – you’d say the same would you?”

Spot freakin-on.

@Chaise – the t-shirts were vague enough for Topman to say they weren’t saying anything about domestic abuse but the phrasing was classic excuse-making when a man/husband/boyfriend hits a woman.

Fifteen or so years ago, some witty marketing executives determined that you could send over priced tat to young knuckle draggers if they slapped ironic fcuk slogans on it. The exercise was eventually dropped when wiser heads pointed out that it was tiresome and dragging the French Connection UK brand down market. Pop over to their web site to see how much has changed.

So what is surprising to me about the Topman shirts is how they even came into existence. I can understand how the designs could have made it onto paper as an unfunny internal joke, but the motifs are so crass that they should have gone no further. It does make you wonder about the so-called creative industries at which the UK allegedly excels. Was there nobody there to stand up and say “this is shit”? Did somebody conduct market research to determine the size of market for neanderthal wear? And if I was a Topman shareholder, I’d want to know that the individuals who ordered thousands of these shirts were no longer with the company.

As others have said, the Spiked crowd are contrarians but O’Neill may have a point that feminists need to sharpen their arguments. After all, there are thousands of misogynists, women beaters and rapists who wouldn’t be seen dead wearing such crap.

[13] of course, I’m not suggesting Frances is responsible for comments on earlier LC threads, although I’m sure other commentators picked up on the absence of feminist commentators.

I disagree about whataboutery, though, given the theme here is sartorial representation of misogyny – to my mind the burqa is the item par excellence when it comes to such accusations – by comparison worrying about the t-shirts is like an elephant worrying about a mouse on it’s back.

@ 14 Frances and S. Pill

I agree that the phrases on the t-shirt sound like excuses for domestic abuse – but they also sound like excuses for any kind of unpleasant behaviour. I was told that the t-shirt was about abuse before I saw it, so it’s impossible for me to know if I would have reached that conclusion if I saw the t-shirt without any context.

I am genuinely uncertain whether or not the people who made the t-shirt meant it to be interpreted in that way. And it’s quite important, because if it IS about abuse, it’s offensive on a much higher level than the “what breed is she?” shirt.

@ 17 a&e

“of course, I’m not suggesting Frances is responsible for comments on earlier LC threads, although I’m sure other commentators picked up on the absence of feminist commentators.”

I’m just not sure how you can make the accusation of “double standards” if you don’t think that the OP is somehow answerable for the opinions of other feminists. I’m a liberal; I hold views that some other liberals disagree with: does that make me a hypocrite?

“I disagree about whataboutery, though, given the theme here is sartorial representation of misogyny – to my mind the burqa is the item par excellence when it comes to such accusations – by comparison worrying about the t-shirts is like an elephant worrying about a mouse on it’s back.”

If you’re not using the burqa issue to dismiss this issue, then yes, it’s relevant to compare them. I guess there’s two big differences here: firstly, banning the burqa involves encroaching on some people’s deeply held beliefs, which doesn’t make it wrong automatically, but it does make the issue more complex than whether or not we find these t-shirts offensive. Secondly, banning the burqa would basically mean taking away women’s freedom of choice “for their own good”, which is pretty shaky. Nobody’s freedom is under attack here, because Topman isn’t obliged to sell whatever people want to buy.

Can’t be arsed reading B’O N, but he’s always going on about men being censored if women object to them acting like pigs. I heard him on Women’s Hour once going on to some women who were campaigning against sexual harrassment on the streets that blokes shouting out “Nice tits,” or “would you like one up you?” were indulging in flirting and banter, and only a Victorian lady with the vapours would object to such behaviour.

[19] I agree Chaise, I do not think banning the burqa is tenable, and have never suggested that we (as a society) should take such an approach – personally I would not ban any clothing, including the hypothetical item mentioned at [3] – the sort of attitudinal changes most of us want cannot be forced on somebody while repression is more likely to have the effect of driving feelings underground and intensifying them.

The bottom line to this debate is how male attitudes are reflected in an item of clothing – recently we have discussed the way children are sexualised, as well as the burqa, of course – today it’s t-shirt slogans, although it might as well be mini-skirts or other items of clothing that convey certain sexual messages.

I mention double standards not because Frances should be accountable for previous LC threads but because the t-shirts are relatively small beer in the wider debate about misogynistic clothing – having said that the ‘double standards’ jibe is not a particularly important point so will withdraw it if you thinks it’s out of order.

Can’t be arsed reading B’O N, but he’s always going on about men being censored if women object to them acting like pigs. I heard him on Women’s Hour once going on to some women who were campaigning against sexual harrassment on the streets that blokes shouting out “Nice tits,” or “would you like one up you?” were indulging in flirting and banter, and only a Victorian lady with the vapours would object to such behaviour.

It’s pretty much the only thing I’ve ever read on there, o’neill in particular, always seems to be to the same formula – declare that are being brutally oppressed by .

I can only assume he’s playing some sort of character.

@ 21 a&e

Oh, I don’t think you’re out of order – I’m just not sure it’s that fair a comparison.

I agree with you RE banning items of clothing. You don’t address bigotry by legally forcing people to pretend not to be bigots. And you certainly don’t liberate people by telling them what they can and cannot wear. I am in favour of laws preventing people from forcing their prejudices onto other people, though – such as laws banning racist hiring practices.

Meh, it’s butchered @21 and taken some of it as html, it was supposed to say – “declare that [insert dominant ingroup here] are being brutally oppressed by [insert faceless shadowy outgroup here, usually 'metropolitan elites' or some variation].”

So what should we ban and why ?
The Stonewall concert at the Royal Albert Hall when dancers dressed as Cubs implicitly encouraged sexual predation on minors by gay men. Ban it ?
Women dressed as schoolgirls off to a party are not uncommon sight. This implies the abuse of minors; ban it ?
Irish jokes used to be common and were banned by Councils usually referred to as ‘loony left’..The subjugation of the Irish isn’t ` funny though . Ban it ?
Suppose a tee shirt had a jokey reference to fighting between men . ban it? The chief victims of male violence are men after all
Our culture is awash with implicit approval of gangsterism which involved violence , drug abuse not to say misogyny and bestial immorality . Ban it all ?
Sharia law treats eh testimony of women as of less value than that of man and versions of Islam are deeply obnoxious to Western feminists . Ban it ?
Violence against women has a special place in our culture . A social taboo evolved from the chivalric code. That ancient rule, however, had implied duties for the women in how she might speak to the man . The state of play currently is, in the opinion of some, asymmetrical.
You and I may not agree but should the suggestion be banned ?
The question is not whether men are oppressed but whether the sentiments are so peculiarly vile as to merit actual prescription . I`d say not overall.

@ 25

They haven’t actually banned the t-shirts. The shop’s withdrawn them, which is a totally different issue.

Faced with the selling of t-shirts with the slogans “You provoked me” or “What breed is she?”, what really matters is over-sensitive women robbing a man of his freedom to dress like a fool.

If there was a genuine ban on such t-shirts, yes. Because whatever harm said t-shirts do (that is, none at all), the ban is worse. However they have not been banned so it is a moot question.

“The dumping ground for society’s killjoys and miserabilists”, feminists, according to O’Neill, just didn’t get the wit, willfully refusing to find the funny side of trivializing domestic violence or being dubbed less than human.

Well he has got the description of modern feminism right, but no feminist has been dubbed less than human. This sort of po-faced over-reaction is precisely the problem.

In doing so, he reaffirmed women’s place as the only group to suffer harassment whilst being told it is their fault for not getting the joke.

Women are not the only group to face harassment. In fact I would argue that women as a group do not suffer harassment at all. Some women do.

More than one in four women will be abused by a partner at some point in their life. 100 women will be murdered this year, by someone that sleeps in their bed.

For very generous definitions of abuse. But so freakin’ what? That does not justify any stupid policy decision a small minority of politically radical women might like to put forward. There is no sane reason to think that these t-shirts encourage anyone to be murdered, or to be abused. You are just using these crimes as an excuse to twitch some curtains and otherwise disapprove.

The men that come home to punch, ridicule, or rape don’t do so because of what’s sitting in their wardrobe. And contrary to O’Neill’s distortions, no one is claiming that they do.

Really? It looks to me like that is just what you are doing. And again, men do not come home to punch. People do. Some of whom are men.

Adorning a hateful t-shirt does not transform a boy into an abuser. As the top snakes over his head, his mind is not in an instant contaminated by the slogan’s stain. He is though given yet one more societal hint that these are crimes to be trivialised – as the young girl next to him is given another to teach her these are not matters over which she should make a fuss.

B*ll*cks. You may wish this to be true but you have no evidence for it.

There is something deeply disturbing in taking the abuse of women – prevalent, and growing, and real – and making it into something consumable, to produce a profit and a self-congratulatory laddish laugh.

Go on, be disturbed. Complain. But ultimately the desire to ban and to control is a greater abuse.

This is the problem, despite what O’Neill states – not that women aren’t able to see the lighter side of domestic violence, but that we exist in a culture that would dare suggest we should.

We are not talking about women. We are talking about a small group of political radicals. We have no idea if women as a group see the joke or not. The people who are outraged are not spokespeople or representative of women as a whole. They only represent themselves. And again we see you are clearly linking the t-shirts with domestic violence. As if.

@ 14 Tunbridge Wells

That’s B O’N's template to a T, with the addition that it shows the deep, deep contempt that the metropolitan elite has for the masses.

Sorry that should be @24 DisgustedofTunbridgeWells

If you accept him to be a member of whatever the ‘metropolitan elite’ actually is, then yes, I suppose it does.

@25

Our culture is awash with implicit approval of gangsterism which involved violence , drug abuse not to say misogyny and bestial immorality . Ban it all ?

Technically speaking drug abuse IS banned…

@16 Charlieman: the Spiked crowd are contrarians

They are deliberately being offensive to get a reaction. I’d describe them as trolls rather than contrarians. We would be best to ignore Brendan O’Neill and the whole tiresome lot of them.

The more I look at that “I’m so sorry, but…” T-shirt, the nastier it gets. The “joke” seems to be that having to apologise to your girlfriend after you’ve beaten or raped her is a bit of a chore, so here’s a handy time- and effort-saving list of off-the-peg bullshit excuses to choose from. That goes way beyond the sort of off-colour humour you could reasonably ask somebody to “lighten up” about.

(In no way were my comments meant to connote support for Brendan O’ Neill or anything he has ever said or done by the way, all of which without exception are execrable nonsense from a hideously malformed psyche, I just think that there are bigger fish to fry and its this sort of petty overwrought identity politics that does the left no favours, making it look like a bit of an interfering joke that is missing the wood for the trees)

All subjective really. I see lots people with Che tee-shirts on the street. Even socialist historians admit he was a murderous killer and used child soldiers. I’m not really into telling people what they can and can’t wear.

Tell you whats funny though, it is absolutely clear some women in this country are forced into the veil. Sunny of course came out fighting the thing when the issue came up. He’s more concerned with a stupid and completely harmless tee-shirt,

It is definitely a trend though. America’s J. C. Penny has had a similar problem:

http://jezebel.com/5836173/jcpenney-will-destroy-your-daughters-self-esteem-for-just-999

They had two t-shirts, one which said “I’m too pretty to do homework so my brother has to do it for me”, the other said “My Best Subjects: Shopping, Boys, Music, and Dancing”.

I assume there are two reasons for this. The first is that they want to create a little controversy. If only they can outrage the po-faced sisterhood, their t-shirt will be in the news for a few days and you just can’t buy publicity like that. Something they have succeeded at. The second, larger, reason is probably that feminism is on the decline as the sisters die of old age. They have not been recruiting well lately. Women, especially young women, find these messages more appealing than Gloria’ Steinem’s and so they are now safe.

Perhaps the best thing is just to not encourage them.

In one sense, these shirts are a good thing.

Normally, to find out what sort of person a new acquaintance is, one has to go to the trouble of getting to know them. But when someone wears one of these shirts, they helpfully allow people to circumvent that time-consuming process, since the shirts proclaim, loud and clear: “Avoid me like the plague! I’m an Arsehole!”

Normally, to find out what sort of person a new acquaintance is, one has to go to the trouble of getting to know them. But when someone wears one of these shirts, they helpfully allow people to circumvent that time-consuming process, since the shirts proclaim, loud and clear: “Avoid me like the plague! I’m an Arsehole!”

I think TopShop should make a line of tee shirts for the girlfriends of these guys to wear. Eg “My other boyfriend is a much nicer bloke” or “He’s only wearing that because he can’t read.” His ‘n’ Hers tee shirts – could catch on.

@ 12 a&e nurse…

Slightly off-topic, but the burqa is also offensive to men in the sense that it presupposes that if we see a woman’s hair/face/skin etc then we will be totally out of control with lust.

What is the feminist party line on these T-shirts with the printed message:

It’s not cheating if . .

The second line is optional.

Here is one suggestion for the second line as well as other messages for T-shirts:
http://www.zazzle.co.uk/its_not_cheating_if_my_husband_watches_tshirt-235888284128156344

Should all these be banned for infringing men’s traditional rights?

@40. Bob B:

“Should all these be banned for infringing men’s traditional rights?”

Naughty, Bob. Marriage/partnership is about respect, friendship and polite discussion of holiday destinations. Those are the only “traditional rights” that you should expect.

“What is the feminist party line on these T-shirts with the printed message…”

I didn’t know that cuckolds were so numerous.

@40

First, you make some assumption that all feminists are in some kind of hive mind that will all think exactly the same thing about any issue. Then you make the mistake of thinking that these t-shirts were banned. Then you make the further mistake of comparing a t-shirt saying women are dogs and that domestic abuse is fine, to a t-shirt about adultery (although the shirt you linked to isn’t – at all.)

Basically, you failed to make a single worthwhile point.

@Charlieman: “I didn’t know that cuckolds were so numerous.”

You are clearly unaware of the extensive presence on the internet of websites serving the mainly American based cuckolding and hotwife fetish interests. Simple google searches on ‘cuckold’ and ‘hotwife’ (without the quotes) will reveal much. There are even impressive erudite, academic papers about these phenomena on the web as well as discussion forums. In America, there are businesses focused on serving what seems to be a highly lucrative market. Believe me – I started online back in 1995.

And btw try this Wikipedia entry: “Jacqueline Gold (born 16 July 1960) is a British business woman, and is currently Chief Executive of the Gold Group International companies Ann Summers and Knickerbox. She is the 16th richest woman in Britain.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Gold

The rampant aspects of feminism deserve to be more widely recognised and appreciated.

Earlier this year, the LibDem controlled council of the London borough where I live launched a new policy for ‘sex shops’. I phoned up the council offices to asked for a copy and got told I couldn’t have one – I would have to phone up and ask one of my ward councillors to request a copy.

Part of the council’s line is that currently there are no ‘sex shops’ in the borough – which is demonstrably untrue – and the fee now set for merely applying to open a shop has been set at over £9,000 regardless of whether the mandatory application is successful. Last year, the local press reported that the estranged wife of a sitting Conservative MP was working part-time in two local ‘massage parlours’. This was fresh and amazing news to me so I searched the internet for signs of more such enterprises seeking customers in these troubled times for business. Sure enough, I found websites for about half a dozen such local enterprises.

While the t-shirts are total rubbish, this is a poor article.

Initially, there’s the issue of not just interpreting the first t-shirt as a reference to domestic violence (which I think is a valid reading, given the ‘you provoked me’ slogan, although none of the others really fit the bill on their own,) but in going further and assuming that was the intent. Topman isn’t above tacky, laddish products, but you’re joking if you think that a shirt intending to make light of wife beating would have made it to the shops.

O’Neill doesn’t think women have a sense of humour bypass, he thinks feminists do. This is a substantial difference, and conflating the two is dishonest. In addition, the idea that women are the only group told that they cannot take a joke when objecting to something meant to be funny isn’t borne out. The same behaviour occurs in regards to various nationalities, towards the obese, towards both the elderly and young people, and so on. Of course the most salient comparison is with men; would you argue that objections towards something that demeans women are taken less seriously than the equivalent towards men? You might still object, but women aren’t singled out.

You link to a piece in the mirror saying that domestic violence is ‘increasing’… based on reported incidents to the police. By the same measure, one could argue that rape has become vastly more prevalent in recent years. Of course, that’s utter drivel; we’ve expanded what legally constitutes rape, have a more sympathetic and specialized police force for dealing with such crimes, and have more rape crisis centres and so forth than we have done previously. It is possible that domestic violence has increased in a statistically significant way, but that source doesn’t come close to showing it.

On my way by bus on Sunday to buy groceries at my favoured supermarket, I caught sight of a young guy at a bus stop wearing a T-shirt with a message: A blow job is better than no job.

Should this T-shirt be banned?

Of course if someone made a t-shirt making jokes about violence against men nobody would bat an eye lid.

But natrually those of us who point this out would be accused of “derailing” and the old “WHAT ABOUT TEH MENZ” insult will be fired!

Of course if someone made a t-shirt making jokes about violence against men nobody would bat an eye lid.

There’s that TV ad on at the moment where the woman throws her man out of the window because she’s having a bad day. I can’t quite see it going out if the roles were swapped.

Indeed Tim J.

It goes without saying that I think these t-shirts in Topman are disgusting and making light of domestic violence. I just think there are double standards that’s all.

I was once told by someone (a man as a matter of fact) that adverts which mock/ridicule men and even condone violence against men are acceptable as men dominate women and live in a male dominated patriarchal society and such adverts are mearley “redressing the balance” and women “getting their own back”.
I chuckled at the thought of advertisers making anti-men adverts that portray men as useless around the house and incapable of being good fathers as motivated by some marxist desire to empower women in a male dominated world. Nothing to do with wanting to make a profit! Jeez!

@45 No. Blow jobs can be performed by either sex.

What of T-shirts displaying the flag of the Confederate States of America – and such are freely advertised for sale – when a town in Virginia has recently sought to pass an ordinance banning the display of the Confederate flag on public buildings?

A little googling will establish that in parts of America there is still a deep lingering nostalgia for the Confederacy 150 years after the Civil War of 1861-65 ended.

When reading O’Neill or Spiked, I think it’s best to go looking for any morsels in the thin ”contrarian” gruel. There usually are some.
There’s obviously a clash of cultures and ideology involved between them and a website like LC, so it’s a bit pointless commentating on them if you don’t make an effort to look beyond the literal. Of course the T shirts are naff and stupid. So was 50 Cent, but do you want to go baning those ”booty” videos which are an integral part of that music genre?

The call to withdraw the T Shirts is a bit like Tipper Gore’s concern over music lyrics and content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parents_Music_Resource_Center

O’Neill did another blog since that one. This time with this ”obviously contrarian” headline:

No wonder children use ‘gay’ to mean ‘rubbish’: gay culture is shallow, camp and kitsch

For what it’s worth, I read the “What breed?” tee-shirt as a commentary on the (alleged) predilection of certain men (such as Welsh and Kiwis) for carnal relations with sheep. In that light, it is most emphatically not a comparison of women with animals; to the contrary, it suggests that the target’s social ineptitude is such that no woman will look at him, and that hence a sheep is the best he can do. Maybe it’s just me.

The “I’m sorry, but” tee shirt, on the other hand…

@50 Public Buildings are significantly different to private persons. Especially in the states, there’s groups on both sides of the aisle that’ll jump screaming at any breach of neutrality in a state’s public buildings. (Admittedly only when it’s something said group doesn’t like)
So again, no.