Wednesday, 25 March 2015

Reverse Sexism in the blog

I find this article hypocritical and incoherent. You make the argument that banning Davidson is not an effective strategy for eradicating sexists. However, nowhere in the article do you cite an example of anyone actually wanting to ban him, or proposing that banning Davidson would be a way to combat sexism. You seem to be arguing against a non-existent issue. You say yourself the show was stopped as a result of poor ticket sales or drunken indiscretion.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, Oskar. Yep, you are right: no-one wanted to ban Jim. However, there have been a few campaigns lately that did  try to no-platform artists because of their jokes... I'm following on from previous posts that rejected this strategy.

You say that you had intended to see the show as a means of challenging your leftist politics. Then you indicate that you didn't actually plan to see the show as its blatant racism was too distasteful.

Perhaps luckily for me, the run was cancelled before I had to make the choice of going to see it or not. 

You say that "those who resist Jim Davidson are as sexist as he is". 

Yep, that was a clumsy way of putting it. A better way would be 'those who call Jim Davidson a cunt are using language that reveals their own, perhaps unconscious sexism, by using a word for female genitalia as an insult.'

Yet you have shown your own resistance to Davidson throughout this entire article, stating you find his comedy crude, racist and old-fashioned. Going as far to say you would not attend his show. Are you saying you are a sexist for being resistant to Davidson? There are obviously many legitimate reasons to find him awful.

You don't actually offer any reasonable explanation for why resisting Davidson makes someone sexist. 

You are quite right. I apologise for being vague.

You seem to imply that those who seek to ban words or ideas are automatically sexist. 
Again, bad expression on my part: I would say that 'those who seek to ban words or ideas are automatically totalitarian in their approach.' Not that this means I don't respect their opinion, or even reject their efforts - I just oppose them.

Aggressive censorship may be a tool used by sexists, but it does not seem to be sexist in and of itself.


You say that "simply banishing certain ideas or words, or even people, does not get rid of the ideas themselves". In the very next paragraph you tell people not to use the word "cunt". You acknowledge that banning certain unpleasant words is a futile exercise in censorship that doesn't address the societal issues at the root of these negative ideas, then you immediately try to ban the use of an unpleasant word. 

Not necessarily ban.. again, I ought to be clearer. I would rather people didn't write the word 'cunt' on posters, because children might read it. I'd also suggest that another insult is more appropriate.

After telling people not to use the word cunt because it is sexist, you then offer a list of insults based on male genitalia as an alternative. How is this not simply displaying another form of sexism? 

We would have to get into a debate about the nature of sexism here, so I have to nod my head and say yes - it is equally obnoxious.

Are you saying that offensive words for female genitals are unspeakable, but male-focused insults are absolutely fine? 

No: I think our genital insults ought to be gender specific.

Obviously I accept that men have not been subject to nearly the same level of denigration or disadvantage as women. and I recognise that "cunt" is a more hateful and emotionally-charged word than prick or bell-end. But if your point is that we shouldn't use such explicitly gendered insults against women, simply offering another list of gendered insults seems like a lazy and hypocritical alternative.

Quite true: and there are plenty of non-sweary words that could be used to describe Jim Davidson, which would actually be more to the point. 

Thanks for your time again, Oskar: I appreciate your thoughts.

No comments :

Post a Comment