Hyper, Indeed
A while ago, the Liberal Conspiracy website inadvertently entertained us with the musings of Zohra Moosa, who was, sadly, “tired of spending so much of my time defending the most basic principles of what I stand for,” and, worse, “justifying why social and environmental justice are worth spending a lot of society’s money on.” Instead, Ms Moosa longed for “a space where these ideas are a given and the debate is about how best to actualize them.” As we’ve discussed elsewhere, radical socialist principles are so much easier to have if one isn’t obliged to defend them or explain how they might work. Explaining what “social and environmental justice” entails and why it should command “a lot of society’s money” is, it seems, an enormously fatiguing business and would, according to Ms Moosa, only “serve to distract.”
A more recent article, by Red Pepper contributor Laurie Penny, adopts a similar approach with a passionate rumination on “hypermasculinity” and “the madness of young men.” Ms Penny describes herself as a “socialist, feminist, deviant, reprobate, queer, addict, literature student, journalist and sometime blogger.” Her article begins thus,
Hypermasculinity, like hyperfemininity, is a pose of the powerless. There is a reason you don’t see gangs of City bankers stalking Moorgate and Maylebone with long knives and hoods pulled down over their heads – and it’s not because they’ve been better brought up.
Adamant stuff, if not entirely convincing. You’ll notice there’s no mention of the considerable number of working class youths who don’t roam the streets armed with knives intent on looking menacing. Instead, it is simply asserted that criminality and thuggish posturing are “poses of the powerless” and nothing at all to do with how children are raised. Or indeed with whether they’re raised in any meaningful sense of the word.
When you’ve got money and status and class and education and power, you don’t need to act out physical prowess and aggression because it’s not all you’ve got.
Well, perhaps; though this assertion is somewhat at odds with the very next sentence.
The hard-working ladies at Spearmint Rhino might well testify to the fact that City lads too are prone to the odd bout of gibbon-like strutting and howling.
At this point one might wonder why it is that some boys from very humble beginnings nevertheless go on to achieve varying degrees of “status, class, education and power” – perhaps even as City bankers – while others from similar backgrounds do not. One might think this a subject worthy of mulling, perhaps even research. Though, clearly, Ms Penny doesn’t. Instead, such details are brushed aside in favour of a statement that is much less intriguing but undoubtedly true.
Finer minds than mine have discussed this function of the culture of young male violence.
As if to prove the point, Ms Penny resumes her stream of unequivocal assertion.
So you’re fifteen, and the whole world is against you. Teachers and pop songs tell you you can do anything, should be anything, anything you want to be, but poverty and class and race and prospects and precedent say different.
Again, the fact that some children from humble beginnings across all ethnic groups go on to achieve a huge range of things somehow passes unregistered. Likewise, the differences both within and between comparable socioeconomic groups – not least those regarding poverty and family structure – are seemingly unworthy of attention. Perhaps Ms Penny imagines she’s describing the experience of all those fifteen year olds whom she would deem en masse to be sufficiently “powerless” and oppressed.
Telly and magazines bleat trite nonsense about love lasting a lifetime when your family is bitter and broken and as poor and messed-up as you are; pills from the doctor and packets from your dealer are the only thing keeping all of you from despair, you’ve got no models for being a man without meanness and posturing, all you’ve got is raw, raging energy, your muscles and your mates. Of course you want to fucking kill something.
By now, some readers may be wondering exactly whose feelings Ms Penny is describing. And again, questions come to mind. If a boy grows up with “no models for being a man without meanness and posturing” how can parental influence be so readily dismissed? Why doesn’t being “better brought up” figure anywhere in this equation? Whose job is it, above and beyond all others, to provide an example of functional masculinity? And if a father isn’t up to the task, or simply isn’t there, whose fault is this?
Although women incontestably have it harder, it’s not only girls but boys, too, who face discrimination on the basis of their gender and of their sex. The expectations and cruelties of western masculinity are not equal but equally devastating to the young people brought low by someone else’s idea of identity. In this horrifyingly unequal culture, young men as well as young women can find themselves powerless, albeit in smaller numbers.
Ah, the hierarchy of victimhood. Always a good sign. Here, in the interests of rhetorical perspective, one might contrast the “cruelties of Western masculinity” and our “horrifyingly unequal culture” with the altogether more glorious situation found, say, in Ghana, Nigeria and much of the Islamic world.
Finally, a conclusion of sorts is reached:
Mums and dads of the baby boom generation: get real. Violent hypermasculinity doesn’t happen in a vacuum, it’s a symptom of poverty and desperation and hopelessness, and you made us.
“Conclusion” is, of course, a rather misleading word, since what we get is simply a rejection of individual responsibility and the role of familial values, and a restatement of the original bald assertion – one which hasn’t been proven, or substantiated, or even, technically, argued. It has, however, been vehemently asserted, which, for some, is every bit as good.
What’s scary is the broad agreement in the comments. What debate there is is mostly about which victim group is more victimised than the other.
There is a readiness to accept the premise, despite the omissions and general incoherence. At no point are the people concerned regarded as even partial authors of their own destiny, or as in any way complicit in this “pose of powerlessness.”
Still, it was the “get real” that persuaded me.
Her best line from the comments: “Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.”
“Although women incontestably have it harder”
Given the absurd levels of crime perpetrated against men (compared to women) incontestable isn’t the first word that comes to mind.
As one commenter points out, the ratios of, for instance, male homelessness and suicide suggest otherwise. But evidence doesn’t seem to figure at all in Penny’s rhetorical drama. Nor does logic. Familial values as a factor in poverty and violence are emphatically denied, yet “mums and dads of the baby boom generation” are told, again emphatically, “you made us.” (Note the “us” and the author’s apparent self-identification with “violent, hypermasculine” boys.)
I suppose the article is best understood as a kind of theatre, or possibly psychodrama. Hence the competitive victimhood, which is always a lovely thing to behold.
David,
“I suppose the article is best understood as a kind of theatre, or possibly psychodrama.”
With just a bit of sado-porn:
“Manhood. Sounds tough and meaty in the mouth, a word torn off with the teeth and lips.”
Eep. I somehow missed that. Maybe I blocked it out, manfully.
What’s also funny – well, sort of funny – is the mismatch between the author’s “edgy” self-description – “deviant, reprobate, queer, addict” – and what seems to be an uncritical regurgitation of someone else’s assumptions.
The appeal to “Mums and dads” in the final line is suggestive, though it is in fact “Mum and dad” – the article, indeed her entire world view, is one enormous, adolescent sulk against her parents. Most people grow out of this pathological deformity of the mind; those who don’t remain as socialists.
“an uncritical regurgitation of someone else’s assumptions.”
Memebot!
Rob,
The adolescent tone is hard to miss and it wouldn’t be entirely glib to see the above as little more than role-play and an expression of the author’s own personal issues. Certainly, we’re led to believe Ms Penny feels some deep, high-minded affinity with anti-social poseurs and low-level thugs. There’s also a strange, implied pseudo-morality, in which aggression and intimidation become badges of victimhood and, by implication, entitlement. This is, we’re told, “social rebellion” – a protest of sorts. By much the same logic, perhaps we should suppose that stealing mobile phones and breaking into cars is actually “redistribution,” and thus justifiable. I wonder how many nasty little pricks have absorbed this kind of rationale, albeit dimly, and used it as validation.
"I think it’s interesting to consider climate change denialism as a gendered phenomenon."
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/interesting_its_fascinating/