Posted: February 5, 2012 in Feminism, Male Impersonators, Mark Simpson, misandry, Uncategorized

I found this funny because Suzanne Moore  is bemoaning how Stewart Lee is not ‘progressive’ in his views on Scottish independence.

But he might as well be describing feminism and their belief in the ‘phallic’ power of patriarchy. Suzanne Moore is the ‘nostalgic’ one. And her old school feminist version of men as walking, predatory ‘penises’ fits Simpson’s description well.

Back in 1994, in his classic book Male Impersonators, Mark Simpson wrote about how ‘right-wing’ men’s movement types denigrate gay men and feminists’ alliances as a machiavellian ‘pact’. He wrote:

‘The men’s movement also began to make the connection between homosexuality and feminism in the cultural war. Its main advocate in Britain, Neil Lyndon, in his comically mis-titled book ‘No More Sex War’, railing against the evil ‘incubus’ of feminism and the lack of ‘paternity rights’, imagined an alliance between the ‘gay movement’ (meaning gay men) and the ‘sisterhood’. [He described it as] a ‘Treaty of Brest -Litovsk’ (the first world war peace treaty between Germany and newborn Soviet Russia that allowed the Germans to devote their attention to the Western Front). ‘

Well, Simpson in 2012 is an ardent anti-feminist. He made his opposition to feminism clear here, when he described misandry as the acceptable prejudice. And here Simpson’s damning critique of feminist columnists has impacted on me so well that I have used it on a number of occasions: to criticise Suzanne Moore’s ‘columns’!

I actually agree with Neil Lyndon. I think gay men and feminists DO form a ridiculous ‘pact’ against their so-called common-oppressor, the big bad wolf of heterosexual men’s ‘patriarchy’. And Mark Simspon, by emphasising his common ground with an arch feminist Suzanne Moore, is just reinforcing that alliance.

But it is dishonest. If those two were to actually speak openly about their views, not on Scottish independence but on gender, the subject they have dedicated their respective careers to, they would be on separate ‘sides’.

I know which side I am on.

  1. Gs says:

    Despite Mark Simpson’s farcical comment,I would guess that sex as a motivating force, would be relevant to feminism as well as patriarchy. To believe sex motivates one side of the issue but not the other suggests a blindness to the issue’s gender and sexual aspect. Either a blindness or a purposeful shrewdness in ignoring sexuality as a motivating force of feminism.

    Maybe this force can be described as breaking puritanical sexual attitudes. Or maybe it can be described as asserting women’s amazonian power over men. I don’t suggest these 2 as real possibilities, but rather suggest them as way of explication. I, myself, couldn’t possible understand the convoluted nature of sex and politics.

    In any event, female sexuality does seems to be an element of contemporary feminism which, not so deftly, gets swept under the rug.

  2. yes the ‘FEM’ prefix in feminism is very crucial. It is against an imaginary, ‘phallic’ MAN

    • Gs says:

      “. . . against an imaginary, ‘phallic’ . . .” I guess my observation is whether they would be against this ‘phallic’ as being against the whole of sexual politics or whether they would be against this ‘phallic’ as being against just the males’ sexual politics?; Would they rather see feminism and the vagina supplant patriarchy and the phallic or would they prefer to see the diminishing of both the vaginal and phallic aspects?

  3. Gs says:

    “. . . the diminishing of both the vaginal and phallic aspects?”

    And Is that even possible?

  4. Lawrence says:

    It is interesting, the idea of a pact between the feminism and the gay rights movement.

    It seems to me that a much similar but much wider phenominon that dominates much of the discourse on all these social justice/identity concerns.

    If you are at all left wing, or interested in social justice ect, or just want to be seen as ‘right’ a long of the time (as opposed to ‘that is wrong’), you have to be allied/be infavour of all other social justice concerns. i.e. most feminists are also well up for socialism/gay rights ect, and the same for gay rights activists/socialists. This could be expanded to disability rights campaigners/trans activists/palestinian freedom fighters ect. I really dislike this. I think this is noble and it is genuinely lovely that people want to live in an inclusive society where no-one has to take shit for who they are/what their life is like, to me it is deeeeeeply problematic.

    it is based on the idea that all oppression is the same, and oppression (being bad) should be stamped out. This is bollocks and not true and doesnt take into account the hugly diverse social and cultural complexities within which people live/act. Gender power relations are in no way the same as a workers relationship to the means of production, or to other workers. I think that there are many concepts in the analysis of both conditions which are inapplicable to the other. The concept of ‘oppression’ and also that of ‘privilege’ are attempts to bridge certain gaps with a simple over-arching concept which I dont believe stands up to rigourous scruitiny.

    I get a lot of this in your work on feminists and gayists. My thoughts are kind of muggy, I will think and write more on this.

    One thing that caught my eye the other day was an activist talking about palestine on twitter. He was talking about the israeli oppression of palestinians, but finished his series of tweets with something like – and then you have to take into account the added oppression experianced by women, lgbt people, desabled people ect. This kind of sums up what my problem is. WTF is ‘added oppression’, The idea that oppression flows through certain transhistorical catagories which create the same effect on the people within these catagories regardless of the complex situations which people find themselves in is deeply problematic and exasperatingly prevelant. As is the idea that social relations (like gender relations) are only dynamics of ‘oppression’. Bollocks bollocks bollocks, try harder.

  5. P.s. I will just add that the introduction to Male Impersonators, which seems to me to ‘concede’ a lot to feminism and ‘gayism’ and their pact, was forced upon Mr Simpson by his publishers. He didn’t want to write it. But he did write it.

    The body of the text of his book is not feminist or gayist at all, to me!

  6. Hi Stoner – I am aware of that blogger. I find her funny because she is EVEN MORE anti feminist than me!

    I feel a bit over-awed…

  7. […] left a link to Girl Writes What at Quiet Riot Girl’s site and a poster named Jared referred me to Furry […]

  8. and Quiet Riot Girl,

    it brings a smile to my face when women articulately write about the problems with Feminism…

    Kind of shows that the David Futrelle’s and Amanda Marcotte’s don’t own truth or justice the way they try to claim….

    or should I call it “truth and justice (TM.)”


  9. paul says:

    Not sure which article exactly to add this to as a comment, but …

    Someone just sent me the following quote from an Ani DiFranco song (a cover with new lyrics to an old Pete Seeger folk song called “Which Side Are You On?”) and I thought I’d put it down since it comes out of more my own view of “feminism,” a word that does seem to be used in some distinctly different ways, some of which I definitely can’t agree with. Anyway, for what it’s worth …

    feminism ain’t about women
    that’s not who it is for
    it’s about a shift in consciousness
    that will bring an end to war

    Okay, i’m ready for the egg-throwing! :0)

    • well I expect annie de franco has changed some consciousnesses as has Judith Butler. But I would say that is not down to their feminism, but other things. Franco’s lyricism and anger, Butler’s grasp of psychoanalysis and gendered identities (which came from Freud and Foucault, neither of whom were feminist).

    • feminism takes the credit for things it is not responsible for and refuses to take the blame for things it is.

      On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Elly wrote:

      > well I expect annie de franco has changed some consciousnesses as has > Judith Butler. But I would say that is not down to their feminism, but > other things. Franco’s lyricism and anger, Butler’s grasp of psychoanalysis > and gendered identities (which came from Freud and Foucault, neither of > whom were feminist). > >

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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