Men Who Hate Women

Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never hurt me

– Children’s rhyme

It’s a lie, of course. Words can hurt. And the best writers have always known this.

If you’re honest, when you write criticism, you are writing to hurt. If I give a writer a bad review, I can call into question his imagination, sensitivity, intellect, interpretation of the world – things that are important to the sense of self.  You should always play the ball, not the man, but often you find yourself playing the ball to hurt the man. Sometimes, it’s good to craft an insult like Dr Johnson; sometimes there’s nothing more appropriate than to call someone out as a pathetic piece of shit. The best adversarial writers are like Harry Flashman, who ‘had a knack of knowing what hurt, and by a cutting word or look could bring tears to the eyes of people who would have laughed at a blow’.

Some of the best political writing comes from anger and hate and the desire for vengeance. As Aristotle said: ‘Hatred of tyrants is inevitable, and contempt is also a frequent cause of their destruction.’ But anger is a better thing than the resentment and bitterness and giggling disdain that now predominates in online political discourse.

I’m convinced much of this climate comes from envy. Consider the case of Max Gogarty. He wrote a Guardian gap-year blog so lacking in self-awareness that the series was pulled after the comment thread filled with vitriol and ridicule. Gogarty’s writing was about as good as most nineteen year old’s. But the hate piled on the kid seems disproportionate in retrospect. The Observer’s Rafael Behr noted that: ‘Max became the target for hatred of supposed media corruption and hypocrisy. Commenters bemoaned the injustice that people such as Max (ie, not them) get to write for newspapers instead of more deserving people (eg, them).’

Also, look at Johann Hari. Certainly, Hari’s behaviour was bad. It was right for him to fall. But there was a glee and a schandenfreude that told us something. As Martin Amis said: ‘Envy never comes to the ball dressed as Envy. It comes dressed as something else: Asceticism, High Standards, Common Sense’.

We have no idea how many people lead empty and frustrated lives, dominated by the drudgery of family and work. People whose only pleasure and release comes from venting in a comment box. We all laughed at the Dickhead Song, but everyone wants new age fun with a vintage feel. Better than council estates and call centres, no? 

Writing in the 1920s, H G Wells provided an insight that still reverberates today:

Going to work is a misery and a tragedy for the great multitude of boys and girls who have to face it. Suddenly they see their lives plainly defined as limited and inferior. It is a humiliation so great that they cannot even express the hidden bitterness of their souls. But it is there. It betrays itself in derision. I do not believe that it would be possible for contemporary economic life to go on were it not for the consolations of derision.

Yet no amount of humiliation can justify or excuse the attacks on today’s women writers. When Helen Lewis-Hasteley wrote about this, her concerns were dismissed by male commenters and pundits, who complained on behalf of the oppressed and emasculated white male. Politics attracts more bullies than the army or the police force. Men get the same levels of abuse, women writers are public figures and it’s all in the game. Professional attention seeker Brendan O’Neill summed it up: ‘If I had a penny for every time I was crudely insulted on the internet, labelled a prick, a toad, a shit, a moron, a wide-eyed member of a crazy communist cult, I’d be relatively well-off. For better or worse, crudeness is part of the internet experience, and if you don’t like it you can always read The Lady instead.’

But male bloggers tend not to get abuse based on their gender or sexuality, let alone social network trawling, fantasies of mutiliation and murder, threats of sexual violence, revealing of personal details in public fora, and the stalking of families and friends. With female writers all these things are thrown into the mix. It is mainly directed at leftwing writers but is something that transcends politics. Britain does not like women with strong opinions, and this is reflected in the composition of our parliaments and the decisions of our courts. The message is clear: if you’re young, and female, keep your head down, and know your place.

Laurie Penny challenges the assumption that ‘a woman must be sexually appealing to be taken seriously as a thinker’. But it seems that it’s always the young and attractive women who are subject to the worst kind of trolling. James Bloodworth, a brilliant young writer, said in an essay on feminism that:

It is often forgotten that hatred towards female sexuality is often directed at the most beautiful women precisely because they have the confidence to dress in a way that unapologetically expresses their sexuality. As one Iranian protester put it in the aftermath of the killing by state security of Neda Agha-Soltan in 2009, ‘they always go for the beautiful ones first’.

That, by the way, is how I account for the popularity of religious fundamentalism on the left. There are a lot of anaemic pseudo-liberal males who wouldn’t mind a society where women do as they are told.

This isn’t a free speech issue. You could close down all newspaper comment facilities without losing anything of value. The presumption of a right to anonymous commentary hacks me off here. I understand why public sector bloggers need secret identities. But what kind of man are you if you’ll insult, hector and abuse a female writer but not stand up and claim your words as your own?

And it’s not completely beyond possibility that a man who fantasises and vocalises about cutting out a woman’s tongue will, at some point, go and cut out a woman’s tongue. Vincent Tabak’s interest in hardcore sadomasochistic pornography was kept out of his trial. (‘Your Honour, my client believes that evidence of his enthusiasm for violent degrading images of assaults on women may prejudice the jury’s decision as to whether he murdered a young woman.’ ‘Hmm, yes, I can see that.’)

I’m not going all Broken Britain on you, but the loss of chivalry, romance and restraint has been a disaster, and the normalisation of casual misogyny has been a crime. What to do? I don’t know. It’s a human nature problem, it’s a masculinity problem and probably insoluble.

Advertisements

3 Responses to “Men Who Hate Women”

  1. paul murdoch Says:

    “But the hate piled on the kid seems disproportionate in retrospect. The Observer’s Rafael Behr noted that: ‘Max became the target for hatred of supposed media corruption and hypocrisy. Commenters bemoaned the injustice that people such as Max (ie, not them) get to write for newspapers instead of more deserving people (eg, them).”

    This isn’t entirely true, and it was completely disingenuous of the Guardian to play up that angle. I’m writing this as somebody who did comment, but in common with 99% of the comments, my criticism was of the Guardian; in my case its overwhelming tendency to commission middle-class privately-educated writers; a disturbing number of whom have a significant portion of their genetic download in common with existing Guardian staff. The comments which touched on Goggarty himself were a fair reflection of his ability, certainly scathing, but as you said yourself: “I can call into question his imagination, sensitivity, intellect, interpretation of the world”. So what else could they have been? His piece was a truly abominable piece of self-regarding pap…OK he was 19 and didn’t know any better, but someone should have pulled the plug.

    The Guardian seemed to me to exaggerate the Goggarty as unwitting victim line in order to avoid answering the criticisms. They’re extremely touchy about nepotism for obvious reasons.

    • maxdunbar Says:

      Absolutely, nepotism is a huge problem here, and I did laugh my ass off at the time. But I can reconcile my view that nepotism is a problem in the media with my observation that there was real envy in the reaction to the Gogarty/Hari cases, and that people sometimes use the line ‘it’s who you know’ to excuse their own failings.

  2. paul murdoch Says:

    I wasn’t sure about the rest. “I’m not going all Broken Britain on you, but the loss of chivalry, romance and restraint has been a disaster, and the normalisation of casual misogyny has been a crime.” does sound a bit “Daily Mail-Moral Panic Latest”.

    I can’t make my mind up about the internet. I had great hopes for it once, and the fact that it’s become a celebrity obsessed porn hub disappointments me but it probably shouldn’t. I’d hoped it’d be a vast samizdat-swapping tool of social emancipation…but maybe that’s just me. And when I think about it, for every steel-souled revolutionary in Tsarist St Petersburg, there were probably 999 other folk more than a little preoccupied with making money, getting laid, getting drunk and model railways. So why was the internet ever going to be any different?

    You’re entirely right about the vitriol aimed at women but the question is surely whether this is simply an expression of existing prejudice or whether that prejudice has been encouraged, increased consolidated etc. Your phrase “the normalisation of casual misogyny” seems to suggest you think it’s had a consolidating effect at least. And it’s certainly tempting to think so.

    Then again, I recently heard a plausible criminologist question recently the idea that paedophilia had increased exponentially due to child porn sites, which I’d assumed was now an accepted fact. Further back, I can recall the furore over “Child’s PlayII” and the seminal role played by Chucky the Doll in the James Bulger murder. There were ‘psychological experts’ at the time who wouldn’t rule out an epidemic of kiddy atrocities because wanton parents weren’t locking rented horror films out of reach. I remember NWA cast as the horsemen of the apocalypse, the Beasty boys as Satan’s spawn, Sigue Sigue Sputnik as whatever else you can think of. I was 13 in 1977 and I believed my Grandad when he watched the Sex Pistols and declared we’d probably all be speaking Russian in 5 years time and fighting each other in the streets for scraps of food. So I’m undecided.

    It may well just be that there are a lot more evil cunts out there than we thought. It may well be that there was always talk like this between sick bastard men concerning what they’d like to do to women. That it’s now preserved forever and can be viewed by anybody certainly changes the status of the comment but does it really lend it any additional force? Isn’t it, anyway, drowned out by the overwhelming presence of ‘normal’ communication? You’ve got to imagine a pub on a Friday night and two little inadequate guys in the corner dribbling at the mouth and swapping sordid observations. If you had the power to zoom in and record them, would you bother? Do you think anybody else would?

    The jury’s still out for me.

    “That, by the way, is how I account for the popularity of religious fundamentalism on the left. There are a lot of anaemic pseudo-liberal males who wouldn’t mind a society where women do as they are told.”

    Not cultural relativism then…or the tendency of many fundamentalist groups to be anti-Western-Capitalism?

    Sorry if I’m going on a bit but the telly’s broke, I’ve just finished my book and I’m minding next door’s kids till the missus gets home…then I’m out to the pub to watch the Ireland game…which sounds a bit sexist but…a good cigar is a smoke etc and football’s football after all.

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 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: