Suzanne Moore: Stupid Woman Columnist #2 Miss Whiplash

Posted: November 11, 2011 in Blogging, misandry
Tags: , ,

This is another section from my post at Graunwatch about Suzanne Moore and the ‘female columnists’ campaign against ‘online misogyny’. The subject is one which is not about to go away and I am emphasising how here at QRG HQ we do not automatically accept that ‘men’ ‘dominate’ ‘women’ in society’s power dynamic. I am also grateful to regular reader and commenter Stoner with a Boner for sharing my recent posts at Feminist Critics blog. I will link back to them and follow up some of those discussions soon.

Here’s Graunwatch:

[Mark Simpson is] not very enamoured of ‘female columnists’. In a piece defending the beauty and androgyny of Andre Pejic, Simpson criticised Amanda Platell who he termed ‘an outraged female columnist’.

In the comments under his post, Simpson emphasised the way ‘female columnists’ such as Amanda Platell like to ‘pose as a defender of [their] sex, dressed in cliches’:

‘She’s just a hack columnist. A hack female columnist (writing for the Mail’s ‘Femail’ section) who likes to pose as a defender of her sex. Dressed in cliches.’

I know Simpson was not aiming this comment at Ms Moore, but it certainly applies to her, and all the ‘female columnists’ and ‘female bloggers’ who have emphasised their ‘femaleness’ in order to present themselves as victims of nasty men online and off.

Something else that Simpson pointed out to me in a private correspondance relating to Platell and Pejic, was that these ‘female columnists’ are not ‘silenced’ or ‘outnumbered’ by men. They dominate the broadsheets column and lifestyle sections. Almost all writing on gender in major newspapers is done by women. And if you include fashion and beauty the ‘female-dominated’ nature of this arena becomes even more marked. Mr Simpson, the leading theorist of masculinity of our times, does not have a column in a national newspaper. Ms Moore, complaining of women being ‘silenced’ by powerful men, has two.

While we are on the subject of ‘domination’ it is interesting to note that Suzanne Moore evoked a familiar figure from all of our psyches in her article: the female dominatrix. She wrote:

‘Other commentators face down the abuse or step in themselves. The last few times I have done this on Twitter I have not been polite and these guys – I am presuming they were male from their names – have apologised or told me they loved me. Since I get a Christmas card every year that says “I know when you see this is from a man you will be sick” I am fairly inured to it. Suffice to say, it comes as no surprise to me that dominatrices make the money they do.’

Here Moore is portraying ‘abusive’ men online as really underneath, just ‘submissive’ weak men. Apart from the *misandry* towards men who like to take the ‘bottom’ position in the sexual power dynamic, she is also suggesting that they deserve and want some kind of ‘punishment’ for their ‘bad behaviour’ from a strong woman.

Again Mark Simpson has already identified the ‘dominatrix’ within contemporay feminism. In an article reviewing a book defending masochism he said:

‘Ironically, the exclusion of masochism from the male psyche has produced a public scenario of their punishment and chastisement by women which continues today. The feminist is Ms Whiplash.’

Once again, I get the impression that Suzanne Moore has not read Simpson very carefully at all. And she certainly hasn’t taken on his ideas. She is just another illustration of his insights.

I however have read his work carefully and I  have taken Simpson’s model of the feminist as ‘Miss Whiplash’ and written:

‘I am not saying feminists completely dominate men or ‘society’ in a sadistic manner. Rather that they take a punitive approach to anyone who does not go along with their dogma. If you are not a male feminist and are not masochistic in that way, you are seen as a ‘problem’ as a man, a problem that needs punishing.’

As Ms Moore’s article shows, men can’t win. If they accept their ‘punishment’ they are treated as pathetic and weak; if they don’t, they are considered to be nasty misogynists.

  1. Jay Generally says:

    I hate commenting first. :I But, I just couldn’t wait.

    Fantastic post, QRG. Thank you for the link to ‘Mr. Thing.’ I have no idea how I missed it, but that post was new to me.

    More dominatrix comparisons so you know I have things to say. 😀 But I’m going to have to mull before I say them. I’m no swift brain, me. I have to put out one point tho’. Now, I don’t like speaking about groups as monolithic, and feminism reaps the benefit of that personal trait just like anyone else. However, I do want to say that I have very rarely, maybe just plain never have, heard a female feminist speak positively of dominatrices who was not a self-identified feminist dominatrix herself or a self-identified feminist female submissive who engaged in homosexual sessioning. Yes, even BDSM positive heterosexual feminist submissives largely seem to, ah, just plain omit the existance of the femdom.

    As for us male subs, we are very frequently treated as the creepiest of the creepy (or ‘pathetic and weak’, as you actually wrote.) You got that right and I appreciate to sympatheic point. I’m not chastising anyone for the predjudice, tho’. Many of us are pretty freakin’ creepy. 🙂 But y’know, groups as a monolith, tarring everyone with the same brush, and what not. Perhaps, I extend the courtesy of not lumping people together because I rather need the courtesy extended to myself. 😀

    • hi Jay I thought of you when I was posting this section up here.

      I think lumping together ‘feminists’ is different from ‘submissive men’ or ‘bottoms’. Feminists spout a particular dogma that I disagree with categorically. Men are just people expressing their sexualities.

  2. Quiet Riot Girl,

    I am here after reading the “bitch” comment at Feminist Critics….

    This I’ll say, I’ve known some great female dogs….

    I would not degrade them by calling a human female misandirst a bitch….

  3. Clarence says:

    Jay Generally:
    I’m a het male “switch” in terms of bdsm, but I have a slight preference for the “bottom” side of things. The amount of shame this used to bring me all the way up until about age 34 or so, is tremendous. As most of my formative sexual years were prior to the internet and I was poor not middle class or wealthy, I also had no way to contextualize my desires so based on the little amount of porn I found that had bdsm themes and the small amount I purchased myself I figured I was a male “submissive”.

    Yeah. This stuff is better reported on than it used to be but it’s still something that is often associated with the “gimp” in Pulp Fiction. It doesn’t help that probably most male submissives you meet on the web are either openly gynocentric feminist or even proponents of “real” (not sexual) female superiority. I’m the lone male that admits to taking a bottom role with women on many alt right, traditionalist and MRA forums and it does get rather lonely.

  4. Jay Generally says:


    Brother, preach. I’m writing a blog post right now about how I was drifting around in circles as a kid wondering if I was gay, trans, or crazy but so deep in each states respective closet that I was trying to find ways to trick myself in my own mind.

    I got into internet circles eventually and it only half helps (half was better than none). There’s the crazy specific fetishes. There’s what I like to think of the scripted dominatrix; the woman performing a role (usually for money, sometimes for attention) that’s just a way to bottom from the top for those who top from the bottom. (Simpson covers the mindset very well in A Hiding to Nothing ) And like any subculture; there’s the all out whackadoos. :/ Everyone’s got their own rocks to stumble over in the road they walk, I guess.

    You’re right; dudes advocate female superiority without thinking about what they’re saying. Like a kink or a personal predjuice is a basis to oppress people or sexism somehow being acceptable if you reverse it.

    I’m also trying to write something coherent to post here or on my blog in response to here. 🙂 I love this site.

  5. Clarence says:

    Jay Generally:

    I have a problem with the concept of “topping from the bottom” in that I think it is often misused. There is nothing wrong with communicating one’s limits or desires so long as one realizes that your partner is in no way obligated to fulfill them.

    As for your second to last paragraph we agree 100 percent. Look forward to your post.

  6. elissa says:

    Well then – she did not make the cut for WMC Social Media Award Nominees 2011, though Doyle and Marcotte did so…also absent from the list is our very own QRG

    Maybe next year!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s