In a recent (UK) Times article, Robert Crampton wheeled out some metro-phobia, transphobia and general sexism that needed commenting on.

Crampton’s cranky piece questioned the decision by a UK couple to raise their child in a ‘gender neutral’ way. He wrote:

‘I’m struggling to work out quite what Beck Laxton and her partner Kieran Cooper are trying to achieve by bringing their child Sasha up as gender neutral. This kid is now 5 and going to school, so his parents have come clean that he’s a boy. Up until now while they’ve told him and a few close relatives that he’s a he, they’ve kept it secret from everyone else, reffering to Sasha simply as ‘the infant’.

Miss Laxton was a little surprised when she discovered other members of her mother and baby group in Sawston, Cambridgeshire, referred to her as ‘that loony woman who doesn’t know whether her baby is a boy or a girl’.

‘I could never persuade anyone in the group to come round for coffee’ she reveals. ‘They just thought I was mental’. Funny that.

Miss Laxton says she is concerned about stereotyping and Sasha being able to fulfil his potential in his own way. Fair enough. But if ever there was a case of coming up with a potentially catastrophic cure for a problem that doesn’t really exist, this is it. Miss Laxton says she thinks it’s great Sasha likes flowers, for example. And it is. But then so do millions of men who weren’t brought up wearing tutus. Hasn’t miss Laxton noticed that nowadays the man who thinks flowers are cissy is the odd one out?

It’s one thing to take a relaxed attitude when your five year old son raids the dressing up box for a fairy dress and tiara. An Englishman’s home is his castle and so forth; we’re a tolerant nation in these matters. Such dressing up is a phase many parents will recognise, and none with any sense will order the boy back in his cowboy outfit.

But neither will any with any sense plaster the image all over their annual Christmas card and youtube. Or the national press, come to that. Talk about embarrassing parents; young Sasha is going to be absolutely slaughtered for that picture throughout his childhood.’

I find it kind of insulting how the journalist dresses up his prejudice in the language of ‘tolerance’, suggesting generously that it is ok to allow your sons to go through a ‘phase’ of liking fairy outfits but if they don’t grow out of it then you’re a bad parent.

This issue of boys being accepted and encouraged to be ‘gender non-conforming’ reminds me of the brilliant blog about a Pink Boy. Sarah Hoffman’s son loves all things pink, and whilst she is happy to indulge his tastes and forms of self-expression, she realised that many people are not. So she began to write about her experiences of parenting a ‘pink boy’.

Sarah is clear that her child is happy being a boy who happens to like ‘girly’ things. But she is open to anything that may happen in the future regarding his feelings about his gender identity. Maybe he is just going through a ‘phase’ but maybe he isn’t. Crampton’s judgemental article is actually transphobic in my view, because it does not allow for children who grow up to occupy a different gender identity from the one imposed on them as infants.

One of the problems with our culture, that Crampton’s snippy article illustrates, is the double standard that operates for boys and girls, men and women, when it comes to gender expression.

The Times journo writes:

‘Sasha sometimes goes to school in a ruche-sleeved, scallop-collared blouse from the girls’ uniform list. That isn’t the best way for him to fulfil his potential. Rather, it sounds like it’s more about advancing the parents’ not-very-thought-through political agenda than it is about the welfare of the child. He’ll probably be ok for a year or two, with luck. After that things might not go smoothly. What happens the first time he decides to wander into the girls’ loo?’

As a five year old girl I think I would have been horrified if I’d have been expected to wear ‘ruche-sleeved scallop-collared’ blouses! But girls are much more able than boys to be ‘gender non-conforming’ and I turned up at school in cords and sweatshirts without anyone commenting at all (until secondary school where I tried, and failed, to get girls to be allowed to wear trousers. But most schools allow it now).

In contrast, when a UK boy wore a skirt to school recently, in protest at not being allowed to wear shorts in the summer, he made national headlines!

The fact is, times are changing, and fast. The phenomenon of metrosexuality means that boys and men are more free to dress and behave in previously considered ‘feminine’ ways. Pioneers for ‘gender non-conforming’ men such as Andrej Pejic and the XY Movement are making it more acceptable for all boys and men to do as they please.

There is bound to be a ‘retro’ backlash. And Robert Crampton’s article is part of that. But I am sure the Pink Boys will prevail.

A recent New York Times interview with Sex In The City star Cynthia Nixon, has caused a bit of a furore amongst mainly American gays. I first read about the story in Queerty, which is itself a VERY gay website. But I appreciated them running  it, and quoting Nixon at length and opening up the discussion to the commenters below the line.

Other publications/individuals have not been so generous, and have railed at Ms Nixon for what? For having the audacity to suggest she has some agency in her sex life and her love life? How very dare she!

One of the main criticisms from Teh Gays about Nixon’s statement is that she is playing into the hands of the religious right in America who claim homosexuality is unnatural, against God, and a sinful ‘choice’. One supergay article suggests:

‘she needs to learn how to choose her words better, because she just fell into a right-wing trap, willingly.  When the religious right says it’s a choice, they mean you quite literally choose your sexual orientation, you can change it at will, and that’s bull.’

http://gay.americablog.com/2012/01/dear-cynthix-nixon-hurting-your-own.html

Another gayist piece states quite baldly:

‘ the issue here is not the legitimacy or source of an individual’s sexuality. It’s a question of strategy. ‘

http://www.readability.com/articles/lfxvzpqn

This concept of ‘strategy’ relates to a theoretical term called strategic essentialism.

‘The term was coined by the Indian literary critic and theorist Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. It refers to a strategy that nationalities, ethnic groups or minority groups can use to present themselves. While strong differences may exist between members of these groups, and amongst themselves they engage in continuous debates, it is sometimes advantageous for them to temporarily ‘essentialize’ themselves and bring forward their group identity in a simplified way to achieve certain goals.’

I oppose ‘strategic essentialism’ because I think it fails in its own goal of uniting ‘oppressed’ groups who have a common ‘enemy’ or oppressor. It serves to privilege (yes I can use that word too) one group’s identity and needs over other, less powerful ones.

In the case of the backlash against Cynthia Nixon, it is clear to me that (usually white middle class and often male) gays are outraged that their worldview and their sense of self, and how they were born this way is not being prioritised. If sexuality is, to some degree, a choice, as Cynthia says it is for her, (note she is not generalising about other people), then gays lose some of their ‘victim status’ as these poor, beleagured people who are forced to live under the shadow of the heterosexual dominant group.

One of the comments that I found most troubling was this one:

A bisexual choosing to be in a gay relationship is not the same thing as a gay person who has no choice. Shame on her. p.ink.cx/zhVzww—
Darren (@mowbrad) January 24, 2012

It seems to be suggesting that bisexual people ‘choose’ their sexuality but gay people don’t! Apart from this not even beginning to make sense at a ‘scientific’ level – how are bisexual people ‘made’ so that they have the ability to make choices and gays are not? – it is politically quite worrying. I think what it is really saying is that bisexual people are ‘liars’. If sexuality is innate then people who ‘choose’ to go against their ‘natural’ sexual orientation, be it straight or gay, are a)lying and b) oppressing the people who stay in their ‘natural’ boxes by making sexuality look like less of a destiny.

One of the comments by Nixon that stood out for me was this:

‘I also feel like people think I was walking around in a cloud and didn’t realize I was gay, which I find really offensive. I find it offensive to me, but I also find it offensive to all the men I’ve been out with.’

http://www.readability.com/articles/lfxvzpqn

My ex was/is bisexual. Though he rarely used that word to describe himself. Sometimes he took the Freudian label and called himself ‘polymorphously perverse’. And sometimes I have worried, since we broke up, that he might have ‘gone gay’. This has filled me with a sense of loss and rejection, because if he is now ‘gay’ then what does that say about our relationship that occurred (with some hiccups) over a period of over ten years?

I expect my ex doesn’t identify as gay, now. He was more Anti Gay than even the author of the book of that title. He taught me, long before I had heard of Steven Zeeland, that ‘sexual identity is a joke’.

But it’s not a very funny one. And I think people’s reactions to Cynthia’s open discussion about her own sexuality, are a sign of how we still haven’t reached ‘the end of sexuality’. Maybe one day, eh?

_______________________

This and probably all my writing is influenced by the work of Mark Simpson.

Remember the LMFAO ‘Sexy and I Know It?’ hit of 2011? I have seen a few amateur videos of metrosexy young lads re-enacting it. So it was only a matter of time before the armed forces got in on the act. Why should they miss out on all the fun?

Actually this rather bitter Guardian article explains that soldiers should not be allowed to take part in Metrosexy culture with us civvies but I disagree strongly:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/23/military-love-affair-dangerous

And so do these metrotastic navy cadets:

However I don’t think any of the videos I have seen quite reach the Metrosexy heights of the original so here it is one more time:

via Mark Simpson: http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2012/01/25/sexy-and-i-show-it-parading-cadets/

h/t @lawrencejgreen for the original LMFAO video

http://www.towleroad.com/2011/12/afasexy.html

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/4758/

Write Less, Listen More is a piece of advice given by Megan Morgenson, to people who write about sex work without having much or any experience of actually doing it. Her post here is really worth a read:

http://meganmorgenson.blogspot.com/2012/01/frustration-of-non-sex-workers-wanting.html?spref=tw

It was in response to a piece at Freedom In A Puritan Age here:

http://www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/?p=281&cpage=1#comment-560

The ‘twitter friend’ Megan mentions in her post, who had her comments deleted at FIPA Journal is me!

I find it interesting that there is quite  a heated debate in the comments section, and yet my comments were deemed ‘inappropriate’ for their publication.

In a recent interview for an Italian magazine, Mark Simpson mentioned some old friends of his – ‘hummersexuals’. He said:

‘Hummersexuals are guys who over-emphasise their masculinity with ‘manly’ accessories in a way that makes you wonder what they’re covering up. Retrosexuals are merely pre-metrosexual.’

This is consistent with what he wrote about Hummersexuals, back in 2006:

‘Despite his best efforts to convince you, the hummersexual is not retrosexual. Since when did “regular guys” need several tons of military hardware, or “new macho” lifestyle magazines such as Best Life, or books such as the bestselling Alphabet of Manliness and Men Don’t Apologise, to be “regular”? The hummersexual is clearly, hilariously, faux-retrosexual. He’s an off-the-peg, drag-king idea of “real” masculinity: stuffed crotch and joke beard included at no extra charge.’

And in a recent piece about some ‘macho’ fashion bloggers he reiterated his old idea that ‘retrosexual’ means ‘pre-metrosexual’: ‘This kind of guff isn’t ‘post-metrosexual’ at all. It’s so pre-metrosexual it’s positively pre-Stonewall.’

Now I’d not paid much attention to these weird, ‘faux-retrosexual’ hummersexuals before. Partly because Mr Simpson has not written anything about them for years, and partly because, more importantly, neither has anyone else.

The thing about ‘neologisms’ is they are only really useful if they capture a concept that a large number of people can relate to and utilise in everyday life. metrosexual and ‘retrosexual’ are both part of regular conversations. Simpson has come up with terms that are meaningful in the contemporary world.

But ‘hummersexual’ to me, is as pointless as a man driving a big petrol-guzzling truck just to prove he is a ‘real man’! To illustrate my point I’ll tell you that the picture at the top is the cover of a retrosexual manual from 2008. There are no ‘hummersexual manuals’ I can find. And last year, Mr Simpson did a reading at a club night with a ‘retrosexual’ (not ‘hummersexual’) theme.

At the ‘retrosexual’ club, Simpson read from the introduction to Metrosexy, where he  discusses the ongoing march of metrosexuality:

‘Not everyone is happy with this state of affairs. Some gays, understandably, don’t appreciate being upstaged. Or being confused. And of course quite a few traditionalist heteros also hate metrosexuality along with the sexual uncertainty that it represents, and wish it would just go away, or have a terrible accident on the sunbed. Or they want to pretend that it never happened, that it was all just a bad, over-plucked dream. Such nostalgic determination not to see what should be as plain as the bronzer on your face is, in its way, quite endearing. But when media types start cooing as they have done lately about ‘retrosexuals’ that are just metrosexuals with shaped chest hair, I can’t help but roll my eyes like the girlfriends of the lads flashing me their shaved balls.

I never thought I’d be saying this, but I want to defend Johann Hari today. Not for his confessed plagiarism, or for the fact he is terrible at writing. His prose gives me what I can only describe as abjection, which I suppose is a sort of achievement. Not for his politics, especially his gayism, which I have criticised for example at Graunwatch.

No, I want to defend Hari based on the way he has been described by a detractor as a suspected pornographer. Suspected pornographer? It sounds like ‘suspected murderer’ put like that. For all his crimes against ethics, morals and well crafted sentences, Hari’s dabblings in written porn are to me his one saving grace!

I write pornography. I watch pornography. I think porn is a healthy aspect of our sexual culture, or at least a widespread ’normal’ one. To try and link porn to Hari’s supposed ‘bad character’ which as far as I am concerned is nothing more than bad, very bad, journalism, seems like a cheap shot to me.

The person  ( @nero on twitter) who did this assured me he is ‘gay’ and so therefore I presume qualified to shame his brothers for their sexual proclivities?

I dislike the behaviour of Johann The Librarian* as much as anyone and I am glad I won’t be forced to read his drivel in the national press anymore. But I won’t stand by idle while he is ‘brought down’ as a ‘pervert’ and suspected pornographer, when those are things I hold dear.

So there.

* cf @marksimpsonist Mark Simpson

I watched this great video recently, by two performance poets, about being short men.

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/16/some-spoken-word-on-heightism/

I am a relatively tall woman, and I have to admit to having a prejudice, not against short men per se, but against dating them. And that is enough of a prejudice to count.

In his brilliant satirical way, Randy Newman wrote a song, ostensibly about ‘short people’, that is actually a very clever comment on prejudice in general.

It reminded me of a conversation I had over at Heresy Corner blog, about a bunch of students winning a case where their imagery for their society was being threatened with censorship by Muslim groups.

The discussion made me think. Which is still, even in this facebook age, a good thing!

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2012/01/ucl-atheists-face-down-censorship.html

Update: the president of the (atheist) society in question has just resigned!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2088811/University-atheist-society-president-forced-resign-cartoon-Muhammad-having-drink-Jesus-posted-Facebook.html

Suzanne Moore has a column in The Guardian this week advocating for ‘freedom of speech’:

http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/does-suzanne-moore-practise-what-she-preaches/

I critiqued her article at Graunwatch here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/18/outrage-culture-limits-free-speech?INTCMP=SRCH

In my piece I wrote:
In an early paragraph Moore writes:

‘If one’s default setting is now to be part of some anonymous but offended mob, somehow the hierarchy of outrage implodes into meaninglessness. ‘

I have had a few conversations with Suzanne, about anonymity and pseudonymity online. Basically she is against both. Or at least she is against both if they are used to criticise her and her writing. She has accused me on more than one occasion, of ‘hiding’ behind my Quiet Riot Girl moniker, and being a ‘coward’ that is afraid to face the world as my ‘real’ self. I suggested that was odd since she is friendly with people (women) such as Girl with a One Track Mind, Fleet Street Fox and Belle de Jour. All of whom have been or are using pseudonyms online. But Suzanne says they are ok because she knows their names. So anonymity is all right, so long as you disclose everything to Suzanne Moore?

Also Moore has joined with other journalists, in the call for an end to anonymous commenting ‘below the line’ at newspaper forums such as cif. I think, though she has since made statements to the contrary, that she largely agrees with this statement on the subject by Julia Hobsbawm:

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/time-to-stop-anonymous-commenting

So, when she says ‘anonymous but offended mob’  Moore is picking out a large group of people online that if she had her way, would not exist at all, let alone be having the freedom to be ‘outraged’. I see a problem there.

The next aspect of Moore’s piece I have a problem with is her insistence that she thinks ‘self censorship’ is a bad idea. In relation to Nick Cohen’s latest book on freedom of speech she says:

‘pre-publication self-censorship “is the most suffocating form there is”. This self-censorship is all around us’

Well yes. And Suzanne Moore positively encourages self-censorship. In me! A few times now she has written to me or tweeted me or left a comment on blogs, basically telling me to stop writing articles about her work. She has also emailed Mark Simpson more than once, asking him to tell me to ‘stop it’.  She has commented here at Graunwatch:

‘ I’d hate if you had to engage in any world beyond your ‘oh -so -clever I am a woman who hates feminism doesnt that make me interesting stance’ If you are a woman? I’d hate to be so essentialist? Goodbye . Dont bother to ever speak to or about me again.’

http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2011/05/21/playing-the-rape-card/

‘Don’t bother to ever speak to or about me again’ is asking me to censor myself.

Thankfully, I am a bit stronger than that. And when I received a rather nasty email last summer from Ms Moore, telling me to ‘watch my back’ I ignored it.

But it’s not just a personal issue I have here. I think the brand of feminism that Suzanne espouses actually actively encourages men to censor themselves on a daily basis. With her kind of feminism it is my way or the highway, and the discourses of ‘pornification’, of ‘rape culture’, of ‘online misogyny’ all inhibit men from speaking out. As Simpson has put it, misandry (that Suzanne Moore often employs) is the acceptable prejudice, and so challenging it is almost impossible.’

Suzanne responded in the comments in a rather nasty and personal way I think.

Also, when I went back to her article at The Guardian I noticed that some of the comments ‘below the line’ had been deleted. I commented on twitter:

'This comment has been removed by a moderator' under Suzanne Moore 's cif piece on freedom of speech. Haha. #censorship—
Quiet Riot Girl (@Notorious_QRG) January 19, 2012

I know it is ‘cool’ to claim you are in favour of free speech. But to really actually be in favour of it takes a bit more than a couple of glib Guardian articles.

I find, in the contemporary social-media dominated world, that when people discuss politics they never explain what is going on! Rather they tend to just demand that you support their cause. Sign this petition! Save the children! Come to this important meeting! Occupy Wall Street! Stop the killings!

Well. I like to understand an issue before I support a campaign.

So, when I saw the calls for people to ‘blackout’ their websites today in protest against #SOPA, I thought rather than blindly follow instructions, I’d use the  day to learn about what SOPA actually is. And to decide if I am opposed to it, and if so, what I can contribute in the campaign.

Wikipedia is one of the websites being blacked out in protest against SOPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Which is a bit of a bummer considering they are a major source of information. But, luckily, they have kindly left a page up explaining SOPA and PIPA. It reads:

‘SOPA and PIPA represent two bills in the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate respectively. SOPA is short for the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” and PIPA is an acronym for the “Protect IP Act.” (“IP” stands for “intellectual property.”) In short, these bills are efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites, but, in our opinion, they do so in a way that actually infringes free expression while harming the Internet. Detailed information about these bills can be found in the Stop Online Piracy Actand PROTECT IP Act articles on Wikipedia, which are available during the blackout. You can also follow them through the legislative process here and here. The EFF has summarized why these bills are simply unacceptable in a world that values an open, secure, and free Internet.’

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative/Learn_more

And here, Anonymous have collated some information about SOPA: http://youranonnews.tumblr.com/post/15783460213/stop-sopa-the-essentials-summary-and-bill-text

I am going to spend some of today reading up on this subject. Because freedom of expression and an open internet is important to me!

And if you get bored, here are some lovely photos of gorgeous men to keep you entertained:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/diogioscuro/5945099677/in/pool-65879846@N00/

UPDATE: I will add some links about #SOPA as I get them. Any info welcome!

This one asks if the ‘problem’ SOPA is trying to solve even exists:
https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/BEDukdz2B1r /via @warrenpearson

Here wordpress join the protest against SOPA: http://wordpress.org/ /via @sesshabatto and others

Mashable’s take: http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/ /via @scribbles78

This is a creative way of doing a ‘blackout’ of a website for the protest: http://theoatmeal.com/sopa /via @AbiePB and others

Here is stoner with a boner, regular commenter at QRGHQ’s take on SOPA: http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/what-is-sopa/

And this just in at the Nervous Breakdown literature/writing site: http://www.thenervousbreakdown.com/jgingerich/2012/01/all-quiet-on-the-western-front-media-reacts-to-sopa-debate-with-resounding-silence/

Mic Wright debates with someone on MSN about SOPA and PIPA: http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/does-the-internet-need-regulating /via @brokenbottleboy

Why In Mala Fide is not participating in today’s blackout: http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/01/18/why-in-mala-fide-is-not-participating-in-the-sopapipa-blackout/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed /via @FBardamu

How Copyright Industries Con Congress: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/how-copyright-industries-con-congress/ /via @mattlodder

https://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/12/03/sopa-soaps/ SOPA Soaps, via stoner with a boner

Guardian CIF on SOPA: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/17/stop-sopa-or-web-will-go-dark?INTCMP=SRCH

@How_Upsetting on SOPA and PIPA: http://howupsetting.tumblr.com/post/16132415365/sopa-and-pipa-would-create-a-consumption-only-internet

A post-blackout analysis from wikipedia watchers: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/wikipedia_so_how_do_you_like_censorship.php /via @quarridors

QRG

I love the new metrosexy Superman costume, designed for the forthcoming film. I grew up with Superman films and it is interesting to see how the ‘look’ of our favourite superhero has developed over the years.

There is a good analysis of the costume here:

http://www.buzzfocus.com/2011/09/01/henry-cavill-superman-man-of-steel-costume-52-redesign-comparison/

In his book Male Impersonators Mark Simpson talks about Superheros in comparison to bodybuilders, saying that the super heroes wear their muscle ‘suits’ on the outside of their bodies. It’s an interesting idea that bends your head a bit if you think about it too much!

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/12/15/male-impersonators-now-available-as-a-kindle-ebook/

Oh, Superman:

Male Impersonators is FREE today on kindle! Maybe tomorrow too:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B006K5ZMNE/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0415909910&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1HS6MHBNXJ0GRM0G8W24

Mr Simpson on Superman’s sexuality: http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2006/06/14/superman-and-his-supersexuality/

On superhero beefcakes: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/01/19/superhero-beefcake-sexy-comics/ /via @ThermobaricTom

h/t @jenjenrobot