Suzanne Moore and ever decreasing circles

Suzanne-Moore-006I’ve been pondering over whether to write a post about identity politics-centred twitterstorms for a while now, but each time I get close to doing so, I back off. The reason? A fear of getting engulfed in the same maelstrom that I’d be commenting on. That in itself is probably a good reason to write, but I think I should start off with a number of disclaimers.

Firstly, this blog is primarily a means by which I seek to order my own thoughts. I welcome other people’s constructive feedback because that, in turn this helps to further order my thoughts. If people agree or are inspired by what I say that’s tremendous. What it most certainly is not is an attempt to lecture people or hector them. If you are tempted to verbally assault me for anything I write here, please consider for a moment that it may just be that we disagree (or that you don’t like what I have to say) rather than assume I am being condescending or trying to silence you. I am certainly not attempting to speak for anyone other than myself.

Secondly, my knowledge of gender studies is almost certainly defective although I do my best to look up and understand unfamiliar terms. If I get any concepts wrong here (in fact, I’ve ended up largely trying to avoid them to make this article as accessible as possible), then I’m sorry and would be happy to make a correction if you point them out.

Thirdly, I’m writing this as someone who has been a political campaigner for 18 years (Has it really been 18 years?) and in the spirit of support for cultural and economic equality for everyone regardless of their identity or background. I hope that anyone who reads this will find it interesting and useful. In all likelihood, it won’t be. Either way, please read it with that in mind rather than view it automatically with suspicion as something written by a white, middle aged, middle class, southern English man in an exclusive, long term heterosexual relationship.

Why all the disclaimers and nervousness? Because some of the people involved in this storm are people I have tremendous respect and admiration for, and I really don’t want to fall out with them. At the same time, it feels as if the battle lines have been drawn in this debate and people seem to get pigeonholed (or indeed pigeonhole themselves) on one side of the debate or the other within seconds. Rational or not, it does feel somewhat as if the odd wrong word here or there is liable to blow up in my face. From reading Stella Duffy’s article on the Suzanne Moore row, it would appear that it isn’t just white middle class men who have this anxiety.

I genuinely can’t decide whether it is to queer feminists’ credit or detriment that I’m as concerned as I am about blundering into this debate as I am in a way that I wouldn’t think twice about in pretty much any other subject (I blog on all subjects these days much less than I do, but that has more to do with a fear of repeating myself than actually offending anyone). People being mindful of the language they use is a good thing; sclerosis caused by a fear about unintentionally offending people is not. Disagreeing in public with someone you like – especially if that person is experiencing a crisis to a greater or lesser extent – is much harder than disagreeing with someone you don’t.

It’s further complicated by my indecision about to what extent I actually disagree or who I disagree with. When considering the recent rows between, for example, Caitlin Moran and her critics over the last few weeks, there have been numerous times when I’ve switched sides as a new fact here or there emerged.

Finally there is the fact that I’m not perfect, and indeed my own views are evolving. My interest in feminism over the past decade, and especially over the last five years, has increased enormously partly as I’ve changed and partly as what I perceived as a rather sterile debate has revived itself. Would I blunder into the “female political blogosphere” debate quite as cackhandedly and insensitively as I did five years ago? One of the problems with having views which are emergent, is that you are rarely confident of them, especially when there are things you are on the record of having written in the recent past which you are not entirely proud of.

Anyway, enough introspection and onto the main purpose of this article. I can’t really improve on Stavvers’ analysis of the Suzanne Moore row (at least as of Friday; it has moved on since then). For me though, the most depressing moment was when I saw Graham Linehan tweet this:

Needs finessing, but a new logo for Twitter?  on Twitpic
I know a lot of people dismissed Linehan’s views a long time ago as just another member of the privileged elite closing ranks, but I was genuinely surprised to see someone who considers himself to be on the left making such a crass intervention; this isn’t so much Jeremy Clarkson-lite as Jeremy Clarkson. Even as an adolescent in the 80s in a boys school for whom women were an alien species, Millie Tant seemed like a particular low point for Viz. The jokes seemed to be just a little bit too obvious; the target just a tiny bit too easy; the strip just a teensy bit too defensive. The implication of Linehan’s tweet was that we are going back to a point in which feminism and mainstream culture simply had nothing to say to each other and that he, as part of the mainstream, was putting as much distance between it and himself as possible.

Suzanne Moore’s wounds this week were entirely self inflicted. Her response to her critics was to give them both barrels and ended up escalating the argument from a small matter of poor taste and judgement to becoming grossly offensive in a matter of minutes. What I hope her most fervent critics have noticed however is that an awful lot of sensible, rational supporters of equality ended up taking her side. In most cases, that was a kneejerk reaction having failed to bother reading the debate, let alone what Moore herself actually said (today’s revulsion by many of the same people to the Julie Burchill article in which she does little more than repeat the thrust of Moore’s argument suggests that), but who can say they don’t depend on heuristics when it comes to taking side in a debate?

It seems to me that there’s a perception problem here that somehow needs to get tackled. The problem is, we seem to be experiencing a case of ever decreasing circles here. As Stavvers writes:

Privileged person nakedly articulates something privileged or wrong or harmful. It pisses off those who are harmed by it–or those who know just how harmful such naked articulations of privilege can be. We express this. We are told not to be angry, or rude, to be rational and logical. It is all derailed. The privileged person fails to learn, change, grow, be better. They act as though they are the victim of some unreasonable mob, never giving a second’s thought to why people are angry.

I understand and share Stavvers’ and others’ frustration at this. Where (I think) I disagree with her is that the answer is to plough on, getting steadily angrier, until the “revolution” arrives (ironically of course, Suzanne Moore’s article which started this latest cycle was also in defence of anger).

Notwithstanding the fact that Burchill may have indirectly helped matters by laying her transphobia bare for all to see in her defence of Moore, I don’t see this circle and widening gulf ending well for the queer feminists. The greater danger is a return to the situation in the 90s in which feminists, when they occasionally emerged blinking into the spotlight of mainstream attention at all, had nothing more to say other than that the fight had been won by a mixture of Thatcherism, Madonna and the Spice Girls. It’s been quite refreshing to see women of the generation after mine take ownership of feminism in the way that women (let alone men) of my generation largely did not. At the moment, I worry that this trend may be on the verge of reversing.

None of this is intended to let the commentariat off the hook. The target of much of this ire recently has been Caitlin Moran. Helen Lewis wrote a blog a couple of weeks ago which went through many of the Caitlin Moran controversies. I found it genuinely enlightening, and it presents a much more sympathetic figure in Moran than her critics tend to present. But if the defenders of Moore were guilty of letting their prejudices about her critics blind them to what she actually wrote, and this is a problem queer feminists must tackle, then the same can be said of Moran. She’s got herself into a rut, with people who ought to be her champions hating her. And it’s happened because she lets her temper and weakness for a cheap gag and playing to the audience get the better of her too often. She’s allowed herself to become surrounded by a group of likeminded writers who, like her, have gone from fearing the mob to actively baiting it. And in doing so, all too often she betrays the values she espouses.

Is rapprochement really too much to ask for? Is the gulf between these two sides really so great? It is terribly fashionable to say that the left likes its infighting, but I’m not sure that actually applies to more than a minority; most people just find it all rather alienating.

For the commentariat, the demands are pretty simple: have a bit of care for your language and don’t make a minority group which faces prejudice and oppression the butt of a cheap laugh, no matter how “accessible” that makes you as a writer (I don’t believe this anyway; in what way would Suzanne Moore’s article have been undermined if she’s replaced “Brazilian transsexual” with “supermodel”? If anything it would have made it more accessible). If you lose your temper on Twitter, like Moran did when she ill-advisedly told someone she “literally couldn’t give a shit about” women of colour, then expect a storm. As a public figure, you can’t complain when it leads to a load of abuse any more than any politician could do so if they made a gaffe.

And there’s the rub. Because what a lot of this row feels like to me is a group of people who are incredibly uncomfortable with the slow dawning realisation that social media, a thing they hitherto embraced as a great leveller, is leading to increased scrutiny and thus accountability that they assumed would only happen to “them” – the politicians, bankers and business people who they perceived as alien and thus the problem. It must be a horrible feeling to suddenly realise you are perceived in much the same way as the people you yourself consider to be the establishment.

As someone who, in a previous lifetime, was a relatively high profile Liberal Democrat blogger and activist, that level of scrutiny and, yes, abuse, is something I take for granted (admittedly, at a lower level). Yes, it is often difficult to deal with and you wouldn’t be human if you always dealt with it with that perfect blend of diplomacy, tact and humour that is often necessary. But however unfair much of it is, it’s a fact of life.

It is worth noting that when politicians get abuse on social media they don’t, as a rule, attempt to smear all their critics with the same brush when responding to it. A few exceptions exist, notably people like Nadine Dorries. Here then is a hint, journalists: if you invite comparisons to Nadine Dorries, you are doing it wrong. Unlike Nadine Dorries however, all too often they get away with it; their supporters simply swallow it as fact when of course it isn’t. That’s a repository of good will which is being abused. Optimistically, I’d like to think that the commentariat will simply calm down after a few years as it learns to take the rough with the smooth of social media. There is however a chance that they will simply continue to close ranks. I doubt this will do newspaper sales many favours (accountability of journalism is also a theme of the Leveson report and thus received a similarly over the top and defensive response from journalists, but I think I’ll leave that hanging for now).

For queer feminists, the challenge is somewhat more amorphous, not least of all because it is a more amorphous grouping. The fact is that there are a lot of people out there who will happily jump on anyone they disagree with on Twitter and start issuing the death threats and piling on the abuse. James Ball triumphantly spent this afternoon retweeting a number of the ones he received for making some mildly satirical comments.

I find the vogue on Twitter to express a desire to “kill” or “set on fire” anyone you happen to disagree with rather odd. It’s tempting to dismiss it on the basis that the individuals concerned can’t really mean it, are being satirical and that the correct interpretation is that it is simply shorthand for an expression is strident disagreement, but I think there’s probably a bit more to it than that (I also wonder, at the risk of sounding patronising, whether it is a cultural issue and that the generation who spent their adolescence using the internet simply developed a different grammar and cultural norms which us oldies can’t interpret). Either way I somehow doubt that, on a psychological level, having 20 people superficially threaten to kill you does anyone any good in terms of developing an open mind about their threateners’ opinions.

I’m not going to go down a cul-de-sac about whether right-minded people have a moral obligation to condemn the threats; I don’t think that particularly gets anyone anywhere. What I do question however is whether the rhetoric of self-righteous anger is particularly helpful. No injustice was ever resolved without at least one person being angry enough to do something about it; that’s pretty redundant. But I question that anger itself should be celebrated in the way that both Moore and Stavvers were suggesting.

A lot of the time the expression of anger is a just massive suck on energy. But it’s actually worse than that. As a tool, the expression of anger has only ever been effective when it has hit the right target and when there have been other tools at people’s disposal to back it up. The poll tax riots worked – but only because there was a political opposition to Thatcher which reaped the benefits politically. 2010’s student protests failed because there was no other channel with which to direct the rage; ironically, the Tories did a fantastic job at getting that rage deflected on the Lib Dems and using it against them during the AV referendum (and by doing so, ensuring that the political system remains as unresponsive as ever). Anger without being connected to anything is simply the verbal and/or political equivalent of letting off a machine gun in a crowded street and hoping it will hit the right target.

I’m reminded of the Guy Aitchison / Jeremy Gilbert dialogue in the book Regeneration (which I failed to review last year), in which Guy’s explanation of the protest movement’s strategy depressingly resembled the Underpants Gnomes’ business strategy in South Park. To be fair, this confusion between tactics and strategy is hardly a problem unique to the radical left (in the Lib Dems’ case, you can replace “anger” with “Focus leaflet” and reach pretty much the same conclusion – although admittedly all those leaflets have proven themselves to be far more effective than riots), but it is a massively under-appreciated one amongst lefties (of course, there isn’t a perfect overlap between queer feminists and the radical left, but there is hopefully sufficient crossover for it to give people pause for thought).

Suffice to say, by all means hold on to your anger – you need it and it will keep you going. But if you aren’t combining every protest and attack with a concerted effort to build bridges and alliances, all you will succeed in doing is alienating people who should be your allies and burning yourself out. Don’t let your anger end up blinding you into carving up the world into some Manichean divide of light and dark, or the light will just look increasingly dim. And don’t confuse genuine anger with casual irritation, which is all an emotionally stunted individual needs to start issuing death threats on Twitter. They aren’t angry; they’re just nasty.

But the other area in which people could improve matters is in communications. Gender studies is the only field I’ve come across in which a criticism over the use of inaccessible language is quite so frequently inferred to be an attack on the field itself. To be fair, cis- is a useful piece of shorthand as long as everyone is on the same page, but if you’re trying to convince someone who hasn’t come across the term that you aren’t being deliberately obscurantist, it simply isn’t helpful. “Intersectionality” is arguably even worse. Again, it isn’t the meaning of the term that I would take issue with (although the term does appear to have drifted from referring to an area of study to referring to an agenda), just the way the term seems to be so frequently held aloft like some kind of talisman. I’ve lost count of the number of tweets I’ve read over the last year that go along the lines of “I just don’t understand why people can oppose intersectionality”. If each time someone wrote something like that they replaced the i-word with something like “awareness that all women face discrimination and the importance of solidarity” (that can certainly be improved upon, but it’s less than 140 chars), an awful lot of progress would have been made. At its heart, this row is rooted in people being defensive in their use of language; a bit of give and take seems necessary on both sides. If your aim is to bring people on the fence over to your side, then speaking in terms they don’t find alienating is a basic step. I’m genuinely confused why this appears to have become such a shibboleth.

I hope that, as tempers start to cool, people on both sides of the divide might attempt to reach out to the other side. If they don’t, then it will simply be an opportunity wasted.

UPDATE: There was an observation I meant to make in this post about the double standard when it comes to “twitterstorms” but I forgot. It was simply an observation that some of the same people who I observed dismissing the idea that abuse on Twitter could effectively silence a feminist writer then went on to defend Suzanne Moore against those selfsame awful feminists. An example is Hayley Campbell here and here, although Hayley is by no means alone. I wanted to include this point not to single people out but to observe quite how tribal this whole debate has become.

UPDATE 2: A few links which I found interesting:


  1. “I’m genuinely confused why this appears to have become such a shibboleth.”

    Me too. I’m a bit worried that maybe I just don’t understand it. I mean, I can easily grasp the notion that there are different axes of identity, and society may oppress or privilege certain positions on these axes, such that a given individual may suffer from multiple forms of oppression, multiple forms of privilege or some mixture of the two. This seems simple, true and fairly obvious once you think about it. But if it’s simple and obvious, how can it be a subject of contentious debate?

    This cuts both ways. I can’t imagine how anyone could disagree with the notion of intersectionality as I’ve described it, but I also can’t really see why it would be considered a profound idea unless there really is more to it than that. The wikipedia page on the subject does more to obscure than enlighten, but I’m assuming that the arguments about the subject are about some additional meaning that the term holds.

    In my past experience of similar debates around identity and discrimination, I’ve seen a lot of misunderstandings coming from two main sources: vocabulary and ethics. For example, “racism” as I learned the meaning of the word in school means “to treat a person differently based on their ethnicity”, but in an academic context “racism” actually means “the system of oppression of ethnic/cultural minorities”. This inevitably ends up with people debating whether or not it’s possible for white people in majority-white countries to experience racism – under the first definition it clearly is, and under the second definition it (slightly less clearly, but certainly arguably) isn’t.

    The second point is about ethics. Some people subscribe to ethics that are about rules – follow the rules and you’re being a good person. These rules may say things like “do not treat people differently based on their gender”, for instance. Other people might be more consequentialist and follow an ethical framework which says that we can only judge outcomes, not individual actions – these would presumably argue that it’s OK to treat people differently based on gender if one does so for a good cause. A third category might argue that intent is what matters, and so on. Because we don’t really learn about ethics in school, we don’t have good labels for these different positions and we never ask each other which we subscribe to, even though it massively influences the positions we take in debates.

    So, it’s perfectly possible for a self-described anti-sexist to say “I’m against sexism, I treat everyone equally”, and another anti-sexist can say “I’m against sexism, I treat the oppressed differently to the privileged”. It will take them a very long time to figure out why they’re disagreeing, and Twitter isn’t normally a very good place to do it.

    Like you, I’m wary of voicing an opinion, partly because right now it feels like intruding on private grief, and even at other times it feels like it might be best to leave those who care the most and have the strongest opinions to just get on with it. I sort of suspect that if I stated my own view – that I’m in favour of freedom and power for everyone, that I’d rather not concern myself with isms but with making sure every individual gets what they need to lead a life of their choosing – that most feminists would be profoundly unimpressed. This saddens me a bit, but perhaps they really genuinely would rather fight their own fights on their own terms, and so long as they’re arguing in favour of greater human freedom I should just leave them to do it the way they see fit.

  2. The trouble here, as always, is pride…isn’t it? What needs to happen (and this isn’t exclusive to the feminist “battles” that flare up) is usually for the more prominant person to simply turn around, say they’re wrong, and ask for help on how to avoid angering the easily angered.

    Those who are easily angered aren’t stupid people, and if they know the person they’re seeing is usually reasonable then there is always a period of opportunity to kill the flames before they ignite.

    The trouble here is that those in question, on these specific subjects at least, simply do not back down. This whole Jan Moir-esque nonsense about being bullied or trolled has got ridiculous. People are getting more instantly angry because they are *never* listened to. Perhaps this is the cost of “fame” and social media, where hearing the same old criticisms causes tiredness to rectify.

    I find it all very interesting as the problems of twitter were (are?) the problems of newsgroups, IRC, AOL Chat, and pretty much any other web-sphere I hung around in online as a young teen. People become entrenched, they enjoy the power of being the “regular”, or in twitter’s case, the most followed, and then form cliques that are all about individuals playing apologist and using cheap tactics to dismiss any critics whenever they present themselves. Given the medium is words, not speech and actions, there is so much emphasis on having a witty (and usually crass, offensive and ill-thought out) line to put someone down with.

    The aim isn’t to win the argument, it’s to deliver the ultimate “Your mom” joke. It seems the same attitude now is the norm on your large publication columnist roster too.

    It’s always about communication, and maybe it’s the people I follow but I have spent the last…3 years?…watching prominent feminists carve out what appears to be, with slight variation, a “perfect feminist” argument, and dismissing anyone that is outside that world view as a troll. It’s depressing to see people that should be working together at each other’s throats, but it is more depressing to see that those who have the privilege of being able to speak to so many choose to be so narrow.

    I don’t think I’m surprised about how much of a fuss this has caused, because like any massive argument it’s been brewing for ages, unresolved due to the fact that there appears (with caveats, I say “appears” with good reason, your links re: Moran very enlightening as you say) to be no real attempts at reconciliation from those that have the power to heal wounds the fastest.

  3. Intersectionality is individualism-lite.

    There is an analysis of society, perhaps most clearly expressed by Marx, which sees it as the conflict of certain groups, in Marx’ case the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. This analysis (which is only a small part of Marxism, which is why “cultural Marxism” is a misnomer) ends up in putting aside individuals for the sake of the groups they are members of. I’m going to call it collectivism, in part because I’m going to be rude about it and very few people will defend it under that name.

    So, the collectivist approach to feminism is there is a group – “men” and a group – “women” and the right thing to do is whatever helps the interests of women and harms the interests of men. Separately there are the interests of trans-people and the interests of cis-people. When we’re thinking about feminism, we don’t worry about trans-people; when we’re thinking about trans, we don’t worry about women.

    Intersectionality doesn’t go so far as to deal with people as individuals and look at each person’s problems; but it does say that there are oppressions of women, oppressions of trans-people, but there are additional oppressions that affect only trans-women, so we don’t just have to take society, divide it into a series of pairs, and resolve each individual oppression, but we have to deal with all the possible combinations.

    The controversy is that it forces people to abandon the easy, simple approach of taking each issue separately and having an oppressed class and a privileged class, and then just taking the oppressed side.

    Of course, if your general approach is individualist (eg you’re a liberal or a libertarian or an individualist socialist or an anarchist) then this conflict seems bleeding obvious.

  4. I certainly agree that the knots that people seem to tie themselves up into over intersectionality are predominantly from wrestling with a primarily collectivist mindset. But before the liberals pat themselves too hard on the back, there also tends to be a liberal blindspot – particularly amongst classical liberals and free market libertarians – which is to assume that treating everyone as having equal worth means that everyone is essentially the same, faces the same challenges, etc. Therefore if we can just resolve all the challenges that I, as a white middle class male faces, then all problems will be solved.

    Linked to that is this lazy obsession with “equality of opportunity” and meritocracy, in which we are given to understand that as long as everyone is given the same “chances” then competition and liberty will sort everything else out for us.

    So yes, liberalism provides collectivists with a valuable critique. But liberalism needs to recognise its own blindspots as well.

  5. “For me though, the most depressing moment was when I saw Graham Linehan tweet this:”

    Really , that’s the most depressing thing ?
    A shitstorm kicks off that makes the Twitterverse revert to 2D caricatures of themselves and a stupid joke involving a 2D caricature is the most depressing thing ?

    I love Helen Lewis’ article, the spirit in which it’s written to give some clarity to a situation

    If only people just took a step back and if necessary defend someone they fundamentally disagree with because it’s the right thing to do.

    1. I found it the most depressing thing because it was emblematic of the bigger picture. I’m sorry you have such a problem with that.

  6. You find it depressing that someone has a flippant disregard for the social media overreaction ?

    We all have our point that we feel is the nexus of an event and if that is yours then who am i to say that your feeling is wrong.

    I personally feel depressed that we are proving we don’t need the likes of the sun and Fox news to drum up hysteria over something pointless and we are quite capable of doing it ourselves

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.