“These
women are gender traitors,” snarled the New
York Times following the election of Kavanaugh. “They’ve made standing by the patriarchy a full-time job.”
I’ve
been thinking again about that election of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court
last year. Not because I want to rake up old coals or claim he was innocent (for
all I know he could well be a rapist – I’m not in the business of defending
rightwing politicos).
No.
I’m interested in Kavanaugh because of the reaction
it provoked.
The
article was by Alexis Grenell and attacked women for not siding with the Democrats
against Kavanaugh. If they were women, it concluded, they had a “duty” to the
left.
Duty?
Women? It all sounds a bit nineteenth century to me. When did these people
swear an oath of allegiance to their gender?
Attacking
professional women for the crime of simply acting as free thinking individuals feels
more than a little misogynist.
It’s
not the first time I’ve seen this kind of thing. I remember being at a bar near
the university; some PhD students I knew were sitting around and somehow the
conversation had got round to sex. People were a little drunk. Perhaps the edge
had been taken off.
And
that was when Jana decided to speak.
Jana
was a tall, shy Lithuanian woman who’d been chasing a set of post-grad funding
opportunities around the globe. She’d spent a few years in the US and was
currently in England – Manchester – for a while. She was working in a pub and
had apparently met some local bloke who was “rough” (she didn’t specify how) and
had a drinking problem.
“We’ve
been together for two years,” she told us.
“Don’t
you mind that?” asked one of the students. Middle class girls who do post-docs
don’t generally go out with rough guys with drinking problems.
“Oh
no,” Jana replied breezily. “I like a strong man.”
The
temperature dropped by a couple of degrees.
“A
strong man?” said the girl sitting next to me.
“Someone
who dominates me,” said Jana.
There
was pin-drop silence.
Now
let me just repeat: I do not endorse her
view. Not even slightly. I don’t think relationships should be based on
power or inequality or “dominance” (what a horrible word). I’ve never sought
any of this myself in my dealings with the opposite sex – frankly I find it
hard to imagine myself “dominating” someone if I wanted to.
But
here’s the thing. I also believe in the right of all human beings to their own
beliefs and opinions.
Needless
to say my friends were not going to let Jana’s comments go unchallenged. A
heated – actually, appalled – debate ensued. How could she say that? Didn’t she know how sexist
that was?
Now,
it’s a free country, and my student friends had as much right to challenge
Jana’s views as she did to express them. What bothered me was that they weren’t
just challenging her views. They were questioning their very legitimacy.
And
here’s the thing. They were doing so chiefly, it seemed to me, because she was a woman.
Jana
was lying; Jana didn’t know her own mind; Jana had been brainwashed by the
patriarchy. Running through it all was a general outraged incredulity that she
could dare to express such a regressive opinion.
Now,
I’m not blaming my student friends. I think they were only reacting in the way
most artsy liberals would have reacted.
But
I really, really disliked their line of argument. To tell a woman that her
opinions are the result of brainwashing by powerful men seems extraordinarily
patronizing to me. No, worse, than that: dehumanizing.
For
a start, I don’t think it should be a crime to admit a fetish for power. Or
hard drinkers. In many parts of the Eastern bloc the comment wouldn’t even seem
all that controversial. I remember girls I met telling me they wanted a guy
with a tinted Merc – a “businessman”. If
you want proof that strong male figures have a cache out there just look at
Putin’s bear hunting selfies. (I didn’t do well romantically in Russia).
Personally
I think powerful men are massive pricks. Gym-bunnies, hunters, bear-trappers,
Russian presidents – all pricks. But, you know: each to their own.
I
hate to remind everyone, after all, but Kink is a major part of modern sexual
activity. There’s a niche – but significant – number of people experimenting
with various forms of roleplayed dominance and submission. Walking past Ann
Summers will remind you. It’s not all one-way either. A good number of men also
like to be tied up / hit / spanked.
So
answer me this: why does a fetish for powerful partners suddenly become illegitimate
the minute a woman expresses it?
The
new left tends all too often to view people
as defined by their class, gender or sexual orientation. They’re seen as
products of some chain of hierarchy and “oppression” – and that on this basis
they should act accordingly.
In
this schema an American woman who supports Trump or Kavanaugh is a “traitor” –
because she’s not a free-thinking human being, but rather a product of biology,
femininity and patriarchy. In the identitarian mindset this seems to mean that
she should espouse the “right” views. In other words, the left ones. The views
that the liberal left approve of.
If
she says things the left agree with, we celebrate her intelligence. If she
doesn’t, we say she’s been brainwashed.
And
it’s not just women who suffer from this kind of thinking. Just look at black
conservatives who “dare” – the idea! – to vote Conservative. Or to challenge
#Black Lives Matter or affirmative action. Or Muslim women who complain of
sexism and misogyny and then find themselves getting rape and death threats
from white liberals.
In
2015 Goldsmiths University Feminist Society eagerly joined in support of the
Islamic Society to ban the feminist Maryam Namazie from speaking for being
“dangerous”. Namazie’s crime is being an outspoken feminist Islamic apostate.
Consider that for a moment: a society of feminists choosing to silence a woman
for the crime of daring to speak out against a conservative religion run
largely by men.
Once
upon a time feminists were applauded for doing exactly that. Now we silence
them. If this happened in Iran we’d call it oppression.
It’s
not like this is even confined to minorities. The left is currently really fond
of explaining Brexit – and the rise of populism in general – as the result of
rightwing propaganda infecting the stupid, sheeplike brains of the “left
behind” white working classes. Those poor dears! Little did they know that they
didn’t actually have the power to form their own opinions. Media moguls, press
billionaires, Putin bots, Cambridge Analytica: that’s what did it. In fact –
given that these stupid working classes are just helpless unknowing victims of
propaganda – perhaps we should think about stopping them voting at all?
Of
course that would ever happen. Except – oh wait – it
did.
But
there are gaping paradoxes here. If rightwing women or working class Brexiteers
are brainwashed, then what’s the magic pill that protected you from the same
process? Reading the Guardian? Blogging
for Buzzfeed? Does that make you
automatically superior to these easily manipulated masses?
One
of the victories of twentieth century feminism and civil rights was to make it
clear that – no – women are every bit as capable of holding intelligent
independent opinions as anyone else. This is a huge step forward for equality. So
let me spell it out. A woman has a right to her views because you have a right
to yours, and so do I. Even if she’s a rightwing woman. Or a black person who
opposes Islam or #BLM. Or a working class person voting Brexit.
That’s
what tolerance means: tolerating people whose views differ from yours. It’s not
easy. But then why should we expect something like that to be easy?
