Sunday, June 07, 2009

Too Sad for Words

Thanks to BrusselsLout for drawing my attention to a new blog by one Cath Elliot, called 'Too Much to Say For Myself'

The first thing that struck me about this was the title. The structures, 'too much', 'too many' and 'not enough' are always and only used in English in a negative way, to describe perceived problems: "There is too much traffic in London", "There are too many people and not enough houses", and so on. Her title implies that someone has told her that she talks too much. Perhaps some Victorian school-teacher has caught her talking in class, and admonished her with a wagging finger: "You've got too much to say for yourself, my girl!" She, being the clever and fearless Left-wing activist that she is, has cunningly taken that expression and 'turned it around', throwing it back in our Patriarchal faces in a feat of post-modern irony, analogous to the way in which the gay community re-appropriated the insult 'queer', by describing themselves as queer, thus removing the stigma. The difference is, of course, that the gay community - or the male gay community anyway - actually has been subject to real discrimination. I seriously doubt that anyone has actually told Mz Elliot that she has 'too much to say for herself'.

The implication of the expression is not that she merely talks too much, as someone genuinely might when they spend 25 minutes loudly discussing Big Brother during a funeral service. Her meaning is obviously political; that she thinks too much, and forms her own opinions; that she is too independent; that she is insufficiently obedient and respectful towards the Patriarchal-Capitalist hegemony. That is clearly what she wishes to communicate. That she lives under an oppressive regime which cruelly attempts to silence her, and that she, the noble, struggling heroine, has bravely turned the master's weapons against him. She is a rebel, a dissident. How cool is that?

The wraith of George Orwell lurks in the background in the form of a quote by none other than Andrea Dworkin. Anyone who admires Dworkin should be treated with suspicion at the best of times, but this is a quote by Dworkin apparently praising truth and integrity. Dworkin believed that the primary interaction between men and women was rape; that rape (and violence generally) defines the male-female relationship more than anything else. For example,

"In this society, the norm of masculinity is phallic aggression. Male sexuality is, by definition, intensely and rigidly phallic. A man's identity is located in his conception of himself as the possessor of a phallus; a man's worth is located in his pride in phallic identity. The main characteristic of phallic identity is that worth is entirely contingent on the possession of a phallus. Since men have no other criteria for worth, no other notion of identity, those who do not have phalluses are not recognized as fully human.". Reference

To most people, this sounds like the ravings of a disturbohead. While we may have sympathy for the mentally-ill, adopting them as role models is hardly a strategy for long-term health, happiness and success. In the quote that Mz Elliot has chosen, Dworkin exhorts us to tell the truth. Just like she does. "Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it. In life, they commit it."

Try reading the Dworkin again, but this time, instead of 'man', substitute the word 'black'. How does it sound? That little thought experiment should give you an insight into the kind of fascists that these radical feminists really are.

Turning to the content of the blog itself, Mz Elliot refers to Twitter and claims that "yet another online platform is in the process of being hijacked by misogynists." I'm not familiar with Twitter myself, but she refers to some threads called #liesgirlstell and #3wordsaftersex.

Looking at the first of these, the contributors are mainly girls, so I'm slightly confused as to the source of Mz. Elliot's umbrage. Perhaps she is concerned that they are letting the sisterhood down by admitting that they tell lies; for the truth, as Dworkin would no doubt inform us, is that wimmin never lie. Lying is a bad thing, and only men do bad things.

The second one, supposedly funny things to say in three words immediately after sex, is equally humdrum, containing posts mainly from women, but Elliot highlights a few that she considers morally unacceptable, and evidence of a deep-seated universal conspiracy to oppress women. Her examples include "F*ck you bitch", "Please unlock me", "I have aids", "time to die". Why she regards these as misogynistic is hard to fathom. It is nowhere implied that a man is speaking to a woman, or that the couple is even heterosexual. You can read into it what you will. Even if we were to assume those things, some of them still do not add up to misogyny; "Please unlock me"? No experimentation with furry handcuffs allowed in the Elliot household, evidently. She seems to be working on the assumption, promulgated by Dworkin, Mackinnon, Daly and the rest of that crew of lesbian Nazis, that all heterosexual sex is rape. Her claims just don't make sense otherwise.

Camille Paglia once described the feminist movement as "a jumble of vulgarians, bunglers, whiners, French faddicts, apparatchiks, dough-faced party-liners, pie-in-the-sky utopians and bullying sanctimonious sermonizers." That seems to be what is on display here. Not only does Mz. Elliot show no understanding of humour or irony, or any view other than her own absolutism, but even worse than that: Despite her insistence on her own inalienable right to speak as much as she wants, she devotes her time to trying to control everyone else's discourse. She tells us what we are allowed to laugh at, what we are allowed to say, think, do and believe.

She is a puritanical, authoritarian, bullying, humourless drone. Her intellectual mediocrity is matched only by her mean-spiritedness. She differs not one jot from the BNP member who came to my blog recently. Both derive their identity from hating others, and viewing themselves as victims. A less healthy or socially-responsible mindset is hard to imagine.

It is difficult to see how Elliot's moral program differs from that of Mary Whitehouse. Where Whitehouse concerned herself with smut on television, Elliot has gone multi-media, concerning herself with smut on the internet. She is another self-appointed, self-serving Puritan, setting herself up as some sort of cultural policeman, wagging her finger disapprovingly at the uncouth masses.

It is strange that none of the women I know - partner, mother, sisters, friends, colleagues - seem to think that they are cruelly prevented from speaking by an oppressive masculine regime. What we have here is a lot of whining about nothing much, pursued in the name of liberty, and for the sake of self-aggrandisement. The reality is that Western middle-class women (such as Elliot) live lives longer, healthier, more privileged, and certainly more secure, than those of Roman Emperors, and to make it even worse, these advantages have been handed to them by men.

Anyway, I've talked to much. It's time to go and murder someone.


BrusselsLout said...

Cath Elliot is aware of the existence of this blog. She checks it frequently. She has posted links to it in the past on a couple of Guardian discussions related to feminism. The idea was to show other commenters there what a bunch of “misogynists” we all were.

I guess the facts and logic were too much for her. Again.

She has promised that her childish response to Bernard’s excellent YouTube Video will be the first of many attacks on Men’s Rights Activism. But my guess is that, in true feminist form, Cath will be bottling out soon and we’ll never hear from her again.

But we can live in hope.

Message to Cath: As Heretic has already requested, bring it on.

Miss Ondrya said...

A lot of the crude remarks young men make are a form of "soldier's humour", a deliberately exaggerated form of insensitivity, probably to show how stoic and tough they are. After all a soldier doesn't want to go onto the battlefield with someone who is squeamish. It's a primitive form of "humour noir". She knows full well, of course, that these type of remarks shouldn't be taken literally, but it suits her to pretend she doesn't.

Heretic said...

"She knows full well, of course, that these type of remarks shouldn't be taken literally, but it suits her to pretend she doesn't".

Yes. These jokes are only funny at all because the implied acts (murder etc) are totally unacceptable. If these were regarded as normal acts, it wouldn't be funny. We'd shrug and say "Yeah, so?" Far from condoning, encouraging or glorifying such acts, these jokes only work by highlighting how unacceptable they are. She has no understanding of humour whatsoever. Or as you say, maybe she just pretends not to. Either way, what a miserable, pathetic little mind.

BrusselsLout said...

She knows full well, of course, that these type of remarks shouldn't be taken literally, but it suits her to pretend she doesn't.

Don't credit Cath with that much intelligence. She is completely out of touch and probably falls into the toilet every time someone leaves the seat up.

Jeffrey said...

I basically just automatically ignore anyone who quotes Andrea Dworkin to prove a point, for any reason, at any time.

I agree with much of what you say, though I usually avoid calling it Female Nazism.

I think it weakens the position to resort to that kind of name calling, myself. Once you show the facts, the people can get to the truth, and Nazi is a word that just distorts from that truth.

BrusselsLout said...

Cath Elliot never once (to my knowledge) quoted Andrea Dworkin in her articles for the Guardian. When I (as a poster/commenter on Cif) once pointed out to Elliot the extreme comments made by Dworkin and a few other well-known rogues, she denied any association with their flavour. And she did this by quoting more moderate feminists (whose thinking is in line with the ifeminists). The point she was pretending to make was that she was not a man-hater.

But here's the crux. She did this without actually saying that she had no support for Dworking and others.

Now we know the real reason she did not say it outright. It is because she fully supports headbangers like Dworkin, MacKinnon, French and others.

Of course, ignoring followers of Dworkin is not hard or disagreeable. But the problem is this. It does not make them go away. We still have to fight them. Feminists like these are in government and in the media this very minute. If we want to remove them we cannot ignore them. (Like we couldn't ignore the Nazis!)