So, I suffer from recurring insomnia. This means that, now and then, I will go through a period of about a week or a month during which I find it difficult – nay, impossible – to fall asleep. I try everything. I count sheep! I read dull and incomprehensible texts! Tormented, I even consider going up and doing something else for a bit, before being like, “I cannot! Because what if sleep comes around and I am not there to greet it?”
In one word, it is terrible. But because pictures apparently say lots of words, or something, I shall try and communicate what it feels like through the medium of Great Art:
The one positive thing about not being able to sleep, however, is that it gives you time to think. In fact, it gives you enough time to think all of the things, and usually all at once. A thing I’ve been thinking about during the deep dark watches of the night, then, is What Feminism Means to Me.
Feminism, for me, is inclusive. It’s based on mutuality, on solidarity, and on the willingness to listen to differing viewpoints. It doesn’t bully, or silence or intimidate; it doesn’t ignore the existence of overlapping oppressions. In short, it’s about equality – real equality, the idea that we’re all, fundamentally, people who deserve respect, and attention, and care.
For me, feminism is the exact opposite of Julie Burchill’s article in The Observer today.
Here is the thing: I wasn’t going to write a Thing about Julie Burchill’s defence of Suzanne Moore. Honestly! I was like, “You know what? This is hate speech. And the thing with hate speech is, you cannot argue with it like a rational person making an argument against something! For it is the speech of hatred and, as such, it should not be validated by counter-arguments.”
But then I had an Insight. This insight was that, on the contrary, I should write about it precisely because it is hate speech. It is hate speech that someone, somewhere, actually published. In a newspaper! In a newspaper that plenty of people read. I feel like I have to belabour this point somewhat, so: PUBLISHED in the OBSERVER that loads of people READ.
I’m not going to link the article, because I don’t want to give it any more traffic (I know what you’re after, Guardian website, you sly dog). In short, Julie Burchill feels silenced by trans people with PhDs (because it’s totally, like, a class thing rather than a transphobic thing!) and has decided that the best way to deal with it is to go and oppress someone. Loudly! Trans people are, Burchill seems to think, far too celebrated and powerful in our society in general and in the feminist movement in particular. This has gone too far! The daily parades in their honour, the impromptu street festivals, all for the benefit of trans activists… Well, you can imagine.
Actually, you can’t, because that is not what our society looks like! On the contrary, our society undermines, disparages and belittles the experiences of transgender people on a daily basis, partly by publishing articles like Julie Burchill's. Why is this?
I’ll tell you why, though I’m pretty sure Julie Burchill won’t like it: privilege, cissexism and transphobia on a personal and – this bit is important! – structural level. Transphobia and cissexism are a part of our culture, and, as such, are pretty much everywhere. An editor read Burchill’s piece and, rather than being like, “Oh my god, what a terrible and hateful screed!” was all, “Yeah, remove this comma and we’re good to go.” Because this kind of hatred is considered acceptable.
It isn’t acceptable. Not ever. In my ideal society, where everyone is of course completely on board with What Feminism Means to Me as outlined above, that editor would’ve been like, “Julie, we’d like to commission a fluff piece on, uh, radiators instead. Yes, radiators! That is the task to which we’ll put you.” That would’ve been that. But because we're so far away from this my ideal society right now, it’s important that we recognise this kind of hate speech and call it out. Otherwise, we risk passively accepting – and perpetuating – it.
Lastly, here’s a link to Roz Kaveney’s piece on CiF about the whole thing (damn you, Guardian, you got me!):
No comments:
Post a Comment