For those of you unfamiliar with the recent storm to hit the British social justice establishment, feminist writer Suzanne Moore recently published an article in the New Statesman, Seeing Red, the Power of Female Anger, wreathing her sex in victimhood. The article itself was backed with a few, cherry-picked statistics, more of the same, tired old feminist clichés and the obligatory blinkers to any reasoning other than this as a patriarchal attack on the sisterhood.
In short, standard-issue drivel from a standard-issue someone in a comfortable job, working comfortable environment, in a civilized society making a great deal more money than the average individual. She takes up the pen and paper to defend what Achebe termed the “Beloved Oppressed.”
Same old, same old.
I’m not going to go into debunking Moore’s article – dozens of writers here at AVfM and elsewhere have already dismantled each and every one of her worn-out arguments in individual detail. That’s not what’s interesting here.
What’s interesting here is that how Moore happily denigrates, and then throws the (MtF) trans community under the bus. Her reasoning for these particular comments? Women; real women, that is, not these ersatz pretenders, are not being sufficiently appreciated for their sterling efforts in working, raising their children and maintaining some standard of personal attraction. Obviously the notion that females be held to the same standards of responsibility for themselves and their actions as anyone else has either not occurred to Moore, or more likely, clashed too strongly with her feminist ideals.
As the tweetstorm grew around Moore’s commentary, none other than Julie Birchill* came to her defense, guns blazing, with all the fire and brimstone an angry feminist can offer. The article speaks for itself; of irrational, blind hatred, mockery, the calculated use of shame, the wholehearted embracing of victimhood, and, above all, the “us-versus-them” dichotomy so integral to feminist discourse.
I’m sure anyone involved with the MRM can speak to how readily this vitriol can be hurled against anyone bold or naïve enough to stand up and challenge feminism; even if those people are their beloved, oppressed, fellow-sufferers in a world ruled by cruel, privileged male overlords; even if those people are bringing to light genuine grievances and issues. It really doesn’t matter. Challenge them, and you will become “the enemy.”
This is not just a piece of news for AVfM readers. For us, it’s the same old harpies circling overhead, howling vileness and cruelty, the same indifference to the suffering of others, the same venom we saw spat in the face of a young man looking for answers in Toronto, the same professional victims and their amazing perpetual martyrdom machine, the same conflict-junkie response to anything that could even be a challenge; the belief the whole world is twisted in some patriarchal, privileged conspiracy against them.
This is an invitation to the LGBT community.
To the egalitarians.
To each and every person interested in human rights for more than just a subsection of the female population.
Take a good, hard look at feminism. Take a good look at what it really is. At what it really means; at who these people really are. They are bigots, they are liars, they are ideologues and they will throw you under a bus the moment you challenge them.
Don’t kid yourselves that these people are the minority. Numerically, they may well be – indeed, I hope they are – but make no mistake, these are feminism’s policy-makers. They are bestselling authors. They are social sciences lecturers. They are the people setting the tone and message for feminism, and who have been doing it since Emmeline Pankhurst decided it was time that she’d rather like to vote too, and without feeling the need to agitate on the behalf of the thousands of men fighting, bleeding and dying on the Western Front, who went without the benefit of the franchise. These are people with no interest in advancing anyone’s rights; only their own privileges.
This is feminism.
And it is a hate movement.
Publisher’s note: The Julie Birchill article has since been removed from The Guardian, apparently for the very reasons cited by Hunt in this piece.
Editor’s Note: we appear to have misprinted Julie Birchill’s name as “Bindell” earlier. That error has been fixed, although the linked material made it clear. Our apologies to Julie Bindel for this mistake.
