Words fail me. How do you respond to something like this written by Daily Mail hacksmith David Thomas?
Straw men abound, and the whole thing is written in a way designed to convince the Mail’s readership that equality legislation - and feminism - is a ridiculous idea on a par with "elf 'n' safety" and the feared "PC gone mad". Although there are plenty of shameless half-truths and purposeful misinterpretations, it also leans heavily on the Mail’s own language: certain words and phrases designed to give the reader a thought-free way of making an instant judgment about an issue. Out of interest, let's count the amount of times they throw in a sexist insult, belittle women or completely fail to get the right end of the stick.
TITLE
"My womanifesto"
The second word! He doesn't waste any time does he? Here he’s making light of the fact that predominantly throughout history language has grown to be exclusionary towards women. You only have to read something from the 1970s to see that this is indisputable. However, Thomas completely misses the point, because everyone knows that the 'man' in manifesto has about as much to do with masculinity as homogenous does with with homosexuality. It actually comes from the Latin for hand - manus - and using it in this way openly mocks the idea that language could be sexist. It tries to make out that feminists are demanding special treatment when in the real world (as opposed to the Mail’s fantasy land), no feminist would seriously suggest amending the word in that way. The criticism also fails because even if the 'man' was gendered, replacing it with 'woman' is the last thing that a feminist would do, because it's about equality, not dominance. The Mail seems to accept this principle when referring to 'Harriet Harperson' but curiously fails to do that here. Maybe internal consistency is too much to expect from editors these days.
"anti-male blitzkrieg"
Feminists are Nazis for demanding equality. Equality legislation, where it tries to redress the balance of centuries of institutionalised misogyny, is the kind of crazy thing Hitler would do. Oh come on, you know him! Killed about 50 million people by starting a horrendously destructive six-year war and ordering unforgiveable atrocities - just like Harriet Harman. Oh no, wait, nothing like Harriet Harman. Also, feminists hate men count: 1
"zealously feminist agenda"
Unhinged and irrational. Because treating men and women as individuals with equal capacity for achievement and disappointment is crazy, whereas buying into stereotypes that were invented to keep women oppressed is totally sensible. Bloody hell, and that's just the title. Buckle up kiddies, this might take a while.
MAIN ARTICLE
"making rape laws even tougher against men"
Because obviously they're so tough already. The conviction rate for rape is approximately 7%. That means out of every hundred reported cases only seven people go to trial. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the other 93 women are just making it up to seek attention, or lying because they were unhappy with the person they'd slept with in the morning. Actually the police categorise only 3% of cases as 'probably' or 'possibly' false so if we were to use our 100-case example above, even if three people were wrongfully convicted in addition to the seven who actually did rape someone, that leaves 90 rapists at large. Remember too that only takes into account cases that go to trial - a rape is reported every 34 minutes in the UK, and the latest news is that the police suspect about 95% of incidents are never reported. Is anyone surprised, when the law is so ill-equipped to handle rape cases? Better to suffer in silence than to go through a traumatic and expensive court process, which is most likely to result in the rapist walking free. I think that this sentence is the most hateful of the article so far but then again, it's early days. Feminists hate men count: 2
"staging a secret attempt…"
Here David Thomas uses the word ‘secret’ to imply deception and espionage that will hurt you. Like ‘stealth’ taxes, here is a government minister sneaking something in on the sly to avoid the ever-watchful gaze of Mail readers, who spend all their spare time scrutinising every White Paper and policy plan that comes out of Westminster for sneaky goings-on. What he is actually doing – and this is either willful deception or utter ignorance – is confusing ‘secret’ with ‘private’. What exactly is secret about suggesting a rule change? Party officials discussed, and ultimately rejected her proposal to ensure that a woman was always in one of the top jobs in Cabinet.
Whatever you think of the actual policy, it is fairly obvious that ‘secret’ is utterly the wrong word in terms of inconvenient things like truth, and journalistic integrity. It’s definitely the right word if you want to get Mail readers’ spleens working overtime. She’s absolutely right that an all-male leadership is unacceptable considering how few of them seem to have any policy concern for women’s rights. Women, after all, only make up 50% of the population. Whether or not her proposal is a sensible way to deal with the overwhelming male majority in Parliament, and most governments, is a valid topic for discussion – not something to be filed away under “aren’t feminists crazy”. You can’t really get more patronising.
"But these are just trifling details. Behind the trivial statistics, it is absolutely clear that women are oppressed..."
No need for sarcasm Mr Thomas. Girls may perform better at school but at university they don’t – Oxford for example has a huge finals gap. While it is again true that more women are entering high-salary professions like medicine and law than ever before, women on average still earn about 17% less than men in the same roles. More women in traditionally male roles means nothing unless they're being treated equally! This is even covered elsewhere in the Mail!
"[Harman] certainly encountered crushing discrimination…"
I am actually astounded that the Mail considers this quality journalism. Taking the experiences of a single person and using it to dismiss any wider problem. Well you know what Mr Thomas, I’m an atheist but I’ve never experienced discrimination because of it, so discrimination against atheists doesn’t exist. Harriet Harman is a woman and has had quite an easy life, so therefore we can completely ignore the 30,000 women every year who lose their jobs illegally due to pregnancy, or the fact that 25% of women will be victims of domestic violence sometime in their life. Both men and women face gender-based discrimination but you'd have to be pretty blinkered to deny that women have it worse, and to do what David Thomas does – to imply that this oppression just doesn’t exist – is astonishing. You can feel the bitterness bleeding through every word in that sentence.
"I am determined that our daughters will never have to bear that terrible yoke..."
While the word ‘yoke’ is clearly meant as sarcasm, I just find myself wanting to applaud the sentiment as though it were serious. Oh yes, says the Mail, let’s sneer at a politician who is standing up for her principles. It doesn’t matter that we’ve been going on for months about slimy career politicians standing for nothing but office; because we disagree with this woman we’re going to savage her for even trying.
"...so I'm going to make our sons endure it instead"
Feminists hate men count: 3
"I should not have referred to 'Lehman Sisters'. I should, of course, have called it ' Lehperson Sisters'..."
It’s political correctness gone mad! I can only assume that since the nickname Harriet Harperson is all over the comments on articles about her, this constitutes Mail-level wit. Of course, she never said ‘Lehman Sisters’. Another example of taking a sound objection to male-dominated language, applying it to something ridiculous, and then laughing because what feminists believe is ridiculous. This is solid gold material, providing you're in nursery school.
"As we all know, women are, by nature, far more financially responsible than men, who are fuelled by a testosterone-driven madness that makes them take risks no woman would consider. Particularly not if there was a handbag to spend the money on instead."
Statistically, it is true that women are more fiscally responsible, although no one is arguing that it's down to some fundamental genetic nature. We’re clearly meant to disagree with this bit, judging by the sarcastic tone, but the fact remains that women in banking generally take fewer risks of the kind that sparked this whole financial meltdown. Testosterone encourages risk-taking. Look, science!
This doesn’t mean that all men take more risks financially than all women. You and I know this, Harriet Harman knows this, and I suspect David Thomas knows this. He is, however, doing his very best to paint things in a simple, easy to understand black-and-white way. He finishes of course with an old stereotype intended to be the dazzling sucker-punch that hits the unwary reader right in the frontal lobe. Women are more cautious with spending? Yeah right, have you ever been to a sale at Schuh!
A perfectly valid observation provided you’re able to comfortably equate a shopping spree with, say, causing the century’s largest global meltdown and losing millions and millions of pounds of investors’ money. I can’t really be bothered tackling the whole shopping thing right now, but I’ll just say that the media can be awfully selective when it looks at spending habits, and it’s rare to see men criticized for the amount of money they spend on products that are actually marketed at them like video games, DVDs, gadgets, cars etc.
"…so that no silly little boys make naughty economic decisions without getting her permission first"
You’re allowed to make crap jokes about this only on days when the corporate officers of the world’s largest corporations – 84% of whom are men – have not just destroyed the global economy. Furthermore, this is totally twisting Harman’s argument. She has repeatedly said that she believes that in big business and in government it is better to have a gender-balanced team running the show, considering that any decisions made are going to affect millions of people of both genders.
What David Thomas has done here has taken that comment, made it out to be a man-hating feminist ploy, implied very strongly that men are the real victims here and then – to top it all off – relegated the hypothetical female CEO to a motherly, scolding position. He doesn’t seem to understand how he’s demolished his own argument. Real decision-making power? No, all she’ll do is tell off the ‘naughty little boys’ who make risky financial deals. Maybe she can make a fucking pie for the board of directors while she’s at it? Or how about a lovely roast? Fuck you David Thomas. Feminists hate men count: 4
"a man may be prosecuted - with a minimum 100 per cent conviction-rate - for any 'romantic' act not preceded by a full risk-assessment, a signed contract of consent - and a Breathalyser test"
No matter how drunk you get, you know when consent has been given. I can’t believe that this was in a national newspaper. That someone deemed this worthy of publication. I’ve already mentioned the statistics but even if the picture was a lot better how can you excuse referring to rape in that coy little sarcastic phrase "a romantic act"? It's utterly despicable.
If you remember, the police estimate only about 5% of rape incidents are ever reported. People wonder why the conviction rate is so low, and they wonder why ‘arguments’ like “well what does she expect dressing like that” are still rolled, but they need look no further than the Daily Fucking Mail. All they do is reinforce the idea that women overreact about rape, that it's mostly a fuss made over nothing: an editorial position which I'd be willing to bet has been taken without any significant research being carried out. Who needs evidence, or scientific reports, when you have gut instinct?
Out of interest I did a search on the Mail’s website for the word ‘rape’, as it’s never far from their front pages. From the first 50 results, 23 were about women who ‘cried rape’, or were written in a way which cast significant doubt on the veracity of the victim's claim. Included in that delightful selection was Peter Hitchens arguing that “drunk rape victims deserve less sympathy”; that’s right Pete, flaunt your compassionate conservatism! So considering that approximately 3% of rape cases are ‘possibly or probably false’, how can the Mail justify the fact that 46% of their articles about it encourage the idea of women using rape as a weapon against men?
"What's more, any man who tries to seduce a woman by means of sexist gifts such as flowers, chocolates, jewellery or poems, shall be arrested for unfair inducement"
When was the last time someone you know said flowers were sexist? I mean come on David, are you even trying any more? What happened? Did you give a woman flowers and chocolate as part of an unwritten contract of “I gave you a gift, now have sex with me”? Was she not keen? Can’t imagine why. Frankly anyone who seems to have trouble distinguishing between seduction and rape shouldn’t be dating at all. Also note the creeping hint of “feminists are making a fuss over nothing – they’re so crazy they’d ban chocolate!” Creating a straw man like this – feminists think flowers are sexist – allows Thomas to again attribute an opinion to Harman that she has never vocalized and then points out how crazy it is. We know it’s crazy, pal, because you made it that way to prove your point.
"...precautionary sterilisation of all males at birth"
Ha ha ha – that’s just the kind of things those crazy feminists would do! You know why? They hate men! Why else would they want financial independence, or the right to vote, or equal pay, or an end to gender-based discrimination? It's probably worth taking a moment to fully consider how monstrous an accusation that is against feminists, and another moment to think about just how fucked up David Thomas must be if he actually thinks that this is something Harman is likely to do. Feminists hate men count: 5
"Across our nation, millions of ordinary women are too afraid to leave their homes at any time of day or night"
Well, surveys consistently show that women are apprehensive about going out at night – the most recent one I have access to was carried out by women’s magazine More and the figure was 95%. Thomas is here trying to make people scoff at this idea but he clearly hasn’t done his homework. He mustn't have heard of Reclaim the Night either, which last year had 2000 participants.
"All men are b******s
All men are wrong, all the time
All crime is committed by men
All crime is committed against women"
None of these are feminist beliefs, or the views of Harriet Harman. A total straw man that fails to stand up even to basic scrutiny. Feminists hate men count: 6, 7, 8 and 9
"It is time to do away with tired, sexist notions such as 'innocent until proven guilty'..."
Stop it Mr Thomas, please just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
"…based on my principles of gender equality, a man accused of a crime will be asked his name, offered the chance to make a formal apology, then told the length of his sentence."
Feminists hate men count: 10
"If women ruled the world, there would be no wars..."
Where the hell did this one come from? I mean, I understand that the rest of this ham-fisted attempt at parody was based on comments Harriet Harman has made this week, but as far as I can see this one was just pulled straight out of David Thomas’s ass. It goes without saying that no feminist believes this. Fuck, no person in the world believes this. It’s twice as much of a failure because even if we descend into his weird little world and take this at face value, he’s giving us two examples of female wartime leaders and then sitting back with a smug look on his face. “See, Harman claims that women aren’t aggressive (she doesn’t) but look at Thatcher and Elizabeth I!” Mr Thomas, I think you might find that over the course of history, most military leaders have been men. Do please list the world’s current female dictators for me, or all the women wanted for war crimes by the UN.
"I will speak to him slowly and clearly, in a way that even a man can understand"
With a deft flick of the wrist, Thomas devastates Harman’s opinions on gender equality with self-deprecating irony. The implication that feminists think that men are stupid is also false. In actual fact the more aware people are of gender issues, the less likely they are to be sexist. It’s people who’ve never given these ideas a second thought that uphold traditional gender stereotypes; at least that’s what science says. Feminists hate men count: 11
"That said, it is quite wrong for women to be denied access to front-line infantry combat, just because they are the world's natural peacemakers."
This saddens me most of all, firstly because I was unaware that women cannot serve on the front-line and secondly because the fact that men have to shoulder that burden instead is a pressing issue for male rights. It's no more acceptable to forbid female soldiers from doing what they signed up to do than it is expecting men to take all of the brunt of the fighting. You’d think someone as rabidly anti-feminist as Thomas would be all over masculism (at least the troglodyte woman-hating end of it), but it’s quite clear instead that he’s never given it a moment’s thought. That’s right, it’s an opinion piece about the gender debate written by someone who has clearly never read anything on it. Bravo, Mail!
"Far too often, they concentrate on boys' toys, such as guns, tanks, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. From now on, the focus will be on battlefield creches, nappy changing facilities and transgender support groups."
What exactly does transgender have to do with feminism? It seems very strange to parachute this in with no explanation into a list of perceived ‘feminine’ interests. Because all women love babies and transgender people? What? It’s probably worth pointing out that transgender people face prejudice from pretty much every corner and it's entirely possible to find feminists who will discriminate against them – just look at Germaine Greer. So it's hardly something fundamentally feminine. I honestly don’t understand what Thomas is trying to do here; it just doesn’t make sense. Please, someone, enlighten me! I’m also fairly worried about anyone who considered ‘guns, tanks, jet fights and aircraft carriers’ to be of a kind with gadgets from Firebox. No, they’re not boy’s toys. They’re designed to kill people.
"Despite my fierce commitment to state education..."
This has very little to do with the gender issues I'm trying to highlight with this critique, but I couldn't resist commenting on this. It may surprise David Thomas to know that children generally do not choose which school they go to, and it’s hardly Harman’s fault that her uncle was a lord. Does it matter to the Mail that Harman is pretty much the polar opposite of Lord Longford, the famed homophobe? Of course not! She’s got a posh uncle, therefore she cannot understand people who aren’t landed and wealthy! Who cares if her roles in Parliament have mainly been in social security and welfare, or that she was responsible for a guaranteed minimum wage? Her relatives are posh!
For some reason, David Cameron and George Osborne – both heirs to baronetcies – tend to escape this criticism. It’s weird too, how the Mail absolutely slammed Labour for running a by-election campaign highlighting that the Tory candidate came from a rich family. I remember various stories and debate articles referring to the mocking of Timpson’s wealthy background as “vicious”, “shockingly personal”, “puerile and poisonous class war tactics”. Hypocrisy, from the Mail? Surely not!
Finally, although it has nothing to say about the topic in question, this sentence is so bad I had to share it:
"What would Harriet do if she were given the keys to Number 10 for real?"
For real mister? Really? Gee willickers!
Reading back, it’s clear to see that pretty much the whole article is brimming with barely-repressed misogyny. David Thomas hates women, and he hates uppity women that don’t know their place most of all. He is fuming – absolutely livid – that Harriet Harman is in a position to push through equality legislation, and is impotently stamping his feet and tearing out his hair because his fragile masculinity feels threatened by the idea of women in positions of power. He believes that basic logic like “I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions” is an indication that Harman wants to put bromide in the water to sterilize men. He is, in short, a dickhead.
It’s not that this is particularly atypical for the Mail, or that this is a particularly bad example. Its just that it is a brilliant summary of the way the paper views women. I couldn’t have put into words that heady mix of sneering superiority and raging impotence, but David Thomas has done it for me. What I can’t work out is why most of its readers are women – what attraction is there in being told that your equality is a ridiculous, dangerous concept? One of the paper’s former reporters is on record as saying that the perfect Daily Mail story is “one that leaves the reader hating somebody, or something”. I don’t think it’s quite what he meant, but I’m certainly leaving this one hating David Thomas and his colleagues at the Mail for letting this inaccurate, insulting trash get published in a national newspaper.
Straw men abound, and the whole thing is written in a way designed to convince the Mail’s readership that equality legislation - and feminism - is a ridiculous idea on a par with "elf 'n' safety" and the feared "PC gone mad". Although there are plenty of shameless half-truths and purposeful misinterpretations, it also leans heavily on the Mail’s own language: certain words and phrases designed to give the reader a thought-free way of making an instant judgment about an issue. Out of interest, let's count the amount of times they throw in a sexist insult, belittle women or completely fail to get the right end of the stick.
TITLE
"My womanifesto"
The second word! He doesn't waste any time does he? Here he’s making light of the fact that predominantly throughout history language has grown to be exclusionary towards women. You only have to read something from the 1970s to see that this is indisputable. However, Thomas completely misses the point, because everyone knows that the 'man' in manifesto has about as much to do with masculinity as homogenous does with with homosexuality. It actually comes from the Latin for hand - manus - and using it in this way openly mocks the idea that language could be sexist. It tries to make out that feminists are demanding special treatment when in the real world (as opposed to the Mail’s fantasy land), no feminist would seriously suggest amending the word in that way. The criticism also fails because even if the 'man' was gendered, replacing it with 'woman' is the last thing that a feminist would do, because it's about equality, not dominance. The Mail seems to accept this principle when referring to 'Harriet Harperson' but curiously fails to do that here. Maybe internal consistency is too much to expect from editors these days.
"anti-male blitzkrieg"
Feminists are Nazis for demanding equality. Equality legislation, where it tries to redress the balance of centuries of institutionalised misogyny, is the kind of crazy thing Hitler would do. Oh come on, you know him! Killed about 50 million people by starting a horrendously destructive six-year war and ordering unforgiveable atrocities - just like Harriet Harman. Oh no, wait, nothing like Harriet Harman. Also, feminists hate men count: 1
"zealously feminist agenda"
Unhinged and irrational. Because treating men and women as individuals with equal capacity for achievement and disappointment is crazy, whereas buying into stereotypes that were invented to keep women oppressed is totally sensible. Bloody hell, and that's just the title. Buckle up kiddies, this might take a while.
MAIN ARTICLE
"making rape laws even tougher against men"
Because obviously they're so tough already. The conviction rate for rape is approximately 7%. That means out of every hundred reported cases only seven people go to trial. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the other 93 women are just making it up to seek attention, or lying because they were unhappy with the person they'd slept with in the morning. Actually the police categorise only 3% of cases as 'probably' or 'possibly' false so if we were to use our 100-case example above, even if three people were wrongfully convicted in addition to the seven who actually did rape someone, that leaves 90 rapists at large. Remember too that only takes into account cases that go to trial - a rape is reported every 34 minutes in the UK, and the latest news is that the police suspect about 95% of incidents are never reported. Is anyone surprised, when the law is so ill-equipped to handle rape cases? Better to suffer in silence than to go through a traumatic and expensive court process, which is most likely to result in the rapist walking free. I think that this sentence is the most hateful of the article so far but then again, it's early days. Feminists hate men count: 2
"staging a secret attempt…"
Here David Thomas uses the word ‘secret’ to imply deception and espionage that will hurt you. Like ‘stealth’ taxes, here is a government minister sneaking something in on the sly to avoid the ever-watchful gaze of Mail readers, who spend all their spare time scrutinising every White Paper and policy plan that comes out of Westminster for sneaky goings-on. What he is actually doing – and this is either willful deception or utter ignorance – is confusing ‘secret’ with ‘private’. What exactly is secret about suggesting a rule change? Party officials discussed, and ultimately rejected her proposal to ensure that a woman was always in one of the top jobs in Cabinet.
Whatever you think of the actual policy, it is fairly obvious that ‘secret’ is utterly the wrong word in terms of inconvenient things like truth, and journalistic integrity. It’s definitely the right word if you want to get Mail readers’ spleens working overtime. She’s absolutely right that an all-male leadership is unacceptable considering how few of them seem to have any policy concern for women’s rights. Women, after all, only make up 50% of the population. Whether or not her proposal is a sensible way to deal with the overwhelming male majority in Parliament, and most governments, is a valid topic for discussion – not something to be filed away under “aren’t feminists crazy”. You can’t really get more patronising.
"But these are just trifling details. Behind the trivial statistics, it is absolutely clear that women are oppressed..."
No need for sarcasm Mr Thomas. Girls may perform better at school but at university they don’t – Oxford for example has a huge finals gap. While it is again true that more women are entering high-salary professions like medicine and law than ever before, women on average still earn about 17% less than men in the same roles. More women in traditionally male roles means nothing unless they're being treated equally! This is even covered elsewhere in the Mail!
"[Harman] certainly encountered crushing discrimination…"
I am actually astounded that the Mail considers this quality journalism. Taking the experiences of a single person and using it to dismiss any wider problem. Well you know what Mr Thomas, I’m an atheist but I’ve never experienced discrimination because of it, so discrimination against atheists doesn’t exist. Harriet Harman is a woman and has had quite an easy life, so therefore we can completely ignore the 30,000 women every year who lose their jobs illegally due to pregnancy, or the fact that 25% of women will be victims of domestic violence sometime in their life. Both men and women face gender-based discrimination but you'd have to be pretty blinkered to deny that women have it worse, and to do what David Thomas does – to imply that this oppression just doesn’t exist – is astonishing. You can feel the bitterness bleeding through every word in that sentence.
"I am determined that our daughters will never have to bear that terrible yoke..."
While the word ‘yoke’ is clearly meant as sarcasm, I just find myself wanting to applaud the sentiment as though it were serious. Oh yes, says the Mail, let’s sneer at a politician who is standing up for her principles. It doesn’t matter that we’ve been going on for months about slimy career politicians standing for nothing but office; because we disagree with this woman we’re going to savage her for even trying.
"...so I'm going to make our sons endure it instead"
Feminists hate men count: 3
"I should not have referred to 'Lehman Sisters'. I should, of course, have called it ' Lehperson Sisters'..."
It’s political correctness gone mad! I can only assume that since the nickname Harriet Harperson is all over the comments on articles about her, this constitutes Mail-level wit. Of course, she never said ‘Lehman Sisters’. Another example of taking a sound objection to male-dominated language, applying it to something ridiculous, and then laughing because what feminists believe is ridiculous. This is solid gold material, providing you're in nursery school.
"As we all know, women are, by nature, far more financially responsible than men, who are fuelled by a testosterone-driven madness that makes them take risks no woman would consider. Particularly not if there was a handbag to spend the money on instead."
Statistically, it is true that women are more fiscally responsible, although no one is arguing that it's down to some fundamental genetic nature. We’re clearly meant to disagree with this bit, judging by the sarcastic tone, but the fact remains that women in banking generally take fewer risks of the kind that sparked this whole financial meltdown. Testosterone encourages risk-taking. Look, science!
This doesn’t mean that all men take more risks financially than all women. You and I know this, Harriet Harman knows this, and I suspect David Thomas knows this. He is, however, doing his very best to paint things in a simple, easy to understand black-and-white way. He finishes of course with an old stereotype intended to be the dazzling sucker-punch that hits the unwary reader right in the frontal lobe. Women are more cautious with spending? Yeah right, have you ever been to a sale at Schuh!
A perfectly valid observation provided you’re able to comfortably equate a shopping spree with, say, causing the century’s largest global meltdown and losing millions and millions of pounds of investors’ money. I can’t really be bothered tackling the whole shopping thing right now, but I’ll just say that the media can be awfully selective when it looks at spending habits, and it’s rare to see men criticized for the amount of money they spend on products that are actually marketed at them like video games, DVDs, gadgets, cars etc.
"…so that no silly little boys make naughty economic decisions without getting her permission first"
You’re allowed to make crap jokes about this only on days when the corporate officers of the world’s largest corporations – 84% of whom are men – have not just destroyed the global economy. Furthermore, this is totally twisting Harman’s argument. She has repeatedly said that she believes that in big business and in government it is better to have a gender-balanced team running the show, considering that any decisions made are going to affect millions of people of both genders.
What David Thomas has done here has taken that comment, made it out to be a man-hating feminist ploy, implied very strongly that men are the real victims here and then – to top it all off – relegated the hypothetical female CEO to a motherly, scolding position. He doesn’t seem to understand how he’s demolished his own argument. Real decision-making power? No, all she’ll do is tell off the ‘naughty little boys’ who make risky financial deals. Maybe she can make a fucking pie for the board of directors while she’s at it? Or how about a lovely roast? Fuck you David Thomas. Feminists hate men count: 4
"a man may be prosecuted - with a minimum 100 per cent conviction-rate - for any 'romantic' act not preceded by a full risk-assessment, a signed contract of consent - and a Breathalyser test"
No matter how drunk you get, you know when consent has been given. I can’t believe that this was in a national newspaper. That someone deemed this worthy of publication. I’ve already mentioned the statistics but even if the picture was a lot better how can you excuse referring to rape in that coy little sarcastic phrase "a romantic act"? It's utterly despicable.
If you remember, the police estimate only about 5% of rape incidents are ever reported. People wonder why the conviction rate is so low, and they wonder why ‘arguments’ like “well what does she expect dressing like that” are still rolled, but they need look no further than the Daily Fucking Mail. All they do is reinforce the idea that women overreact about rape, that it's mostly a fuss made over nothing: an editorial position which I'd be willing to bet has been taken without any significant research being carried out. Who needs evidence, or scientific reports, when you have gut instinct?
Out of interest I did a search on the Mail’s website for the word ‘rape’, as it’s never far from their front pages. From the first 50 results, 23 were about women who ‘cried rape’, or were written in a way which cast significant doubt on the veracity of the victim's claim. Included in that delightful selection was Peter Hitchens arguing that “drunk rape victims deserve less sympathy”; that’s right Pete, flaunt your compassionate conservatism! So considering that approximately 3% of rape cases are ‘possibly or probably false’, how can the Mail justify the fact that 46% of their articles about it encourage the idea of women using rape as a weapon against men?
"What's more, any man who tries to seduce a woman by means of sexist gifts such as flowers, chocolates, jewellery or poems, shall be arrested for unfair inducement"
When was the last time someone you know said flowers were sexist? I mean come on David, are you even trying any more? What happened? Did you give a woman flowers and chocolate as part of an unwritten contract of “I gave you a gift, now have sex with me”? Was she not keen? Can’t imagine why. Frankly anyone who seems to have trouble distinguishing between seduction and rape shouldn’t be dating at all. Also note the creeping hint of “feminists are making a fuss over nothing – they’re so crazy they’d ban chocolate!” Creating a straw man like this – feminists think flowers are sexist – allows Thomas to again attribute an opinion to Harman that she has never vocalized and then points out how crazy it is. We know it’s crazy, pal, because you made it that way to prove your point.
"...precautionary sterilisation of all males at birth"
Ha ha ha – that’s just the kind of things those crazy feminists would do! You know why? They hate men! Why else would they want financial independence, or the right to vote, or equal pay, or an end to gender-based discrimination? It's probably worth taking a moment to fully consider how monstrous an accusation that is against feminists, and another moment to think about just how fucked up David Thomas must be if he actually thinks that this is something Harman is likely to do. Feminists hate men count: 5
"Across our nation, millions of ordinary women are too afraid to leave their homes at any time of day or night"
Well, surveys consistently show that women are apprehensive about going out at night – the most recent one I have access to was carried out by women’s magazine More and the figure was 95%. Thomas is here trying to make people scoff at this idea but he clearly hasn’t done his homework. He mustn't have heard of Reclaim the Night either, which last year had 2000 participants.
"All men are b******s
All men are wrong, all the time
All crime is committed by men
All crime is committed against women"
None of these are feminist beliefs, or the views of Harriet Harman. A total straw man that fails to stand up even to basic scrutiny. Feminists hate men count: 6, 7, 8 and 9
"It is time to do away with tired, sexist notions such as 'innocent until proven guilty'..."
Stop it Mr Thomas, please just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.
"…based on my principles of gender equality, a man accused of a crime will be asked his name, offered the chance to make a formal apology, then told the length of his sentence."
Feminists hate men count: 10
"If women ruled the world, there would be no wars..."
Where the hell did this one come from? I mean, I understand that the rest of this ham-fisted attempt at parody was based on comments Harriet Harman has made this week, but as far as I can see this one was just pulled straight out of David Thomas’s ass. It goes without saying that no feminist believes this. Fuck, no person in the world believes this. It’s twice as much of a failure because even if we descend into his weird little world and take this at face value, he’s giving us two examples of female wartime leaders and then sitting back with a smug look on his face. “See, Harman claims that women aren’t aggressive (she doesn’t) but look at Thatcher and Elizabeth I!” Mr Thomas, I think you might find that over the course of history, most military leaders have been men. Do please list the world’s current female dictators for me, or all the women wanted for war crimes by the UN.
"I will speak to him slowly and clearly, in a way that even a man can understand"
With a deft flick of the wrist, Thomas devastates Harman’s opinions on gender equality with self-deprecating irony. The implication that feminists think that men are stupid is also false. In actual fact the more aware people are of gender issues, the less likely they are to be sexist. It’s people who’ve never given these ideas a second thought that uphold traditional gender stereotypes; at least that’s what science says. Feminists hate men count: 11
"That said, it is quite wrong for women to be denied access to front-line infantry combat, just because they are the world's natural peacemakers."
This saddens me most of all, firstly because I was unaware that women cannot serve on the front-line and secondly because the fact that men have to shoulder that burden instead is a pressing issue for male rights. It's no more acceptable to forbid female soldiers from doing what they signed up to do than it is expecting men to take all of the brunt of the fighting. You’d think someone as rabidly anti-feminist as Thomas would be all over masculism (at least the troglodyte woman-hating end of it), but it’s quite clear instead that he’s never given it a moment’s thought. That’s right, it’s an opinion piece about the gender debate written by someone who has clearly never read anything on it. Bravo, Mail!
"Far too often, they concentrate on boys' toys, such as guns, tanks, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. From now on, the focus will be on battlefield creches, nappy changing facilities and transgender support groups."
What exactly does transgender have to do with feminism? It seems very strange to parachute this in with no explanation into a list of perceived ‘feminine’ interests. Because all women love babies and transgender people? What? It’s probably worth pointing out that transgender people face prejudice from pretty much every corner and it's entirely possible to find feminists who will discriminate against them – just look at Germaine Greer. So it's hardly something fundamentally feminine. I honestly don’t understand what Thomas is trying to do here; it just doesn’t make sense. Please, someone, enlighten me! I’m also fairly worried about anyone who considered ‘guns, tanks, jet fights and aircraft carriers’ to be of a kind with gadgets from Firebox. No, they’re not boy’s toys. They’re designed to kill people.
"Despite my fierce commitment to state education..."
This has very little to do with the gender issues I'm trying to highlight with this critique, but I couldn't resist commenting on this. It may surprise David Thomas to know that children generally do not choose which school they go to, and it’s hardly Harman’s fault that her uncle was a lord. Does it matter to the Mail that Harman is pretty much the polar opposite of Lord Longford, the famed homophobe? Of course not! She’s got a posh uncle, therefore she cannot understand people who aren’t landed and wealthy! Who cares if her roles in Parliament have mainly been in social security and welfare, or that she was responsible for a guaranteed minimum wage? Her relatives are posh!
For some reason, David Cameron and George Osborne – both heirs to baronetcies – tend to escape this criticism. It’s weird too, how the Mail absolutely slammed Labour for running a by-election campaign highlighting that the Tory candidate came from a rich family. I remember various stories and debate articles referring to the mocking of Timpson’s wealthy background as “vicious”, “shockingly personal”, “puerile and poisonous class war tactics”. Hypocrisy, from the Mail? Surely not!
Finally, although it has nothing to say about the topic in question, this sentence is so bad I had to share it:
"What would Harriet do if she were given the keys to Number 10 for real?"
For real mister? Really? Gee willickers!
Reading back, it’s clear to see that pretty much the whole article is brimming with barely-repressed misogyny. David Thomas hates women, and he hates uppity women that don’t know their place most of all. He is fuming – absolutely livid – that Harriet Harman is in a position to push through equality legislation, and is impotently stamping his feet and tearing out his hair because his fragile masculinity feels threatened by the idea of women in positions of power. He believes that basic logic like “I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions” is an indication that Harman wants to put bromide in the water to sterilize men. He is, in short, a dickhead.
It’s not that this is particularly atypical for the Mail, or that this is a particularly bad example. Its just that it is a brilliant summary of the way the paper views women. I couldn’t have put into words that heady mix of sneering superiority and raging impotence, but David Thomas has done it for me. What I can’t work out is why most of its readers are women – what attraction is there in being told that your equality is a ridiculous, dangerous concept? One of the paper’s former reporters is on record as saying that the perfect Daily Mail story is “one that leaves the reader hating somebody, or something”. I don’t think it’s quite what he meant, but I’m certainly leaving this one hating David Thomas and his colleagues at the Mail for letting this inaccurate, insulting trash get published in a national newspaper.
0 comments:
Post a Comment