The Patriarchy Made Me Do It
Not only are [young women seen as] objects, they are abject, terminally unable to cope with the exigencies of adult life, of the bewildering array of life choices modern society offers us, from vaginal butchery to jobs in the service sector.
Yes, I fear Laurie Penny is off her meds again.
I hesitate to summarise what it is she’s banging on about in this extract from her latest book, as it isn’t particularly clear to me. Nor is it always obvious how one avalanche of hyperbole and assertion leads to the next. The joining logic is hard to pin down, let alone parse. It’s all rather impressionistic and yet terribly adamant. It’s sort of, “Self-harm-something-something-patriarchy-obviously.”
Western womankind is collectively imagined as a toddler let loose in a candy store, so overwhelmed by the range of options that it has an ungrateful tantrum and is sick on the floor.
Collectively imagined. As so often in Laurie’s mental landscape, dark forces are at work although the evidence has been lost in a mysterious warehouse fire. We are, however, pointed to the “front pages of celebrity magazines,” on which, obviously, all sane people model their own, actual lives. We’re told that “Successful women on the verge of mental and physical collapse… is a myth that pleases the powerful,” though who the powerful might be is also far from clear. Can she mean the overwhelmingly female readership of Heat magazine?
Meanwhile, huge chunks of rhetoric fall from the sky:
Sometimes we get called rebels and degenerates and troublemakers, and sometimes we are known to the police. And sometimes, in the narrow hours of the night, we call ourselves feminists.
Because it just wouldn’t be a Laurie Penny article without some of that.
And,
From boardrooms to the streets, women’s anxiety to keep our body mass as low as possible is based on legitimate fears that we will be punished if we attempt fully to enter patriarchal space. No wonder so many of us are starving.
That paranormal “we” again, of which Guardian columnists seem inordinately fond. I wonder, though. Does the above describe you, your family and friends? Are you, or they, fearful of fully entering “patriarchal space” and being “punished” by unspecified patriarchs on account of last night’s pudding? Is yours a “brave new world where empowerment means expensive shoes and the choice to bend over for your boss”? Do you therefore feel inclined to hack at your own flesh, or starve yourself, or rot your teeth with stomach acid, to the point of family alarm and hospitalisation, as Laurie did?
The young women already there [on the eating disorders ward] look like broken dress-up dolls, all of us poured from the same weird, emaciated mould, barely able to stand upright, the same cut marks scored like barcodes in the secret places on our skin.
Is that what womanliness, your womanliness, is like? Or – and I’m just spitballing here – is there something not entirely representative about Ms Penny and her lurid mental adventures?
Update:
In the comments, rjmadden shares his understandable bewilderment,
I’m confused. Is she trying to tell us that women can cope or that they can’t?
As with many articles by self-styled feminists, it’s actually hard to tell. Laurie insists that it’s a myth that young women are “terminally unable to cope with the exigencies of adult life” – a “myth that pleases the powerful” – the unspecified powerful. And yet she also tells us that women as a class of beings are riddled with anxieties about weight and prettiness and are neurotically starving themselves. And dreading whatever torments lurk in “patriarchal space.” This, from a feminist and self-described “radical” whose own coping strategies included quite serious self-harm and a spell in hospital.
Our tearful feminist also seems keen to ascribe her own mental health issues to women in general and then, in the name of feminism, assumes those women to be trivial, feeble creatures, adrift on a tide of celebrity gossip magazines, adverts for cosmetics and other social ephemera. Women, she says, “consume only what we are told to” by “a machine that wants our work, our money, our sexuality broken down into bite-sized chunks.” In Laurie’s world, women are trying to be “perfect girls” who are “compliant,” who “make people feel comfortable” and who “accept the occasional grope in the corridor.” And yet I struggle to think of any woman I know, an actual woman, matching this description.
As an aside we do see the same problem to a lesser extent in general society too; women are equals to men right up until a woman has to face the consequences of her poor or immoral decisions (and women, not actually being perfect despite some of the claims, do make poor decisions just the same as men), and then it’s “She’s only a women, we should make sure she doesn’t suffer”. Most people never actually express these two opinions in obvious terms, and especially not in the same article though.
Cue my cancer researcher/professional student sister who blathers about equality, but when the garbage has to be taken out or needs assistance to avoid the disaster of the canopy blowing off the deck at the cottage, well, that’s “mans work”.
The toast just sat there passively, on a plate, like a virgin bride on her wedding night. Waiting to be devoured.
Heh. Quite.
If Laurie’s rise to minor stardom has revealed anything, it’s that sound argument (or any argument at all) is much less important than emotional hyperbole and “radical” attitudinising. Presumably her audience likes her conclusions and doesn’t much care how one arrives at them or whether they’re supportable. And so Laurie is on speed-dial at the BBC and is asked to write books of this, um, quality. Someone is buying this stuff. Not enough of them for Laurie to make a living as an author, but enough to raise an eyebrow.
I think “vaginal butchery” might be a reference to labiaplasty, otherwise universally known in the media as “designer vagina” cosmetic surgery. Which provoked a piece on the Daily Mash entitled “Your vagina is not a kitchen, women told“, including such classic lines as:
May have some relevance to the “women competing with each other” conversation. As a heterosexual male I quite like vaginas, and this kind of thing makes me feel a bit ill.
When I was younger, I dated some young girls who I later found out were pretty fucked up. “Charming” is not the word I would use to describe my experiences.
Amen, Brother.
Are you in a fledgling death metal band? Struggling to think of a good band name?
“vaginal butchery”
You’re welcome.
It’s no wonder Laurie Penny looks peaky. All that posturing must be exhausting.
Is she using “vaginal butchery” as a synonym for “childbirth”?
I think “vaginal butchery” might be a reference to labiaplasty
I think Patrick is thinking too sensible and not enough “Penny Dreadful”. I suspect Laurie is referring to vajazzling – something she deeply despises as yet another oppressive patriarchal weapon against the poor, powerless women.
It would be FGM, because that would require her to examine her support for multiculturalism. Which is, in fact, a point. If vajazzling (consensual, mostly harmless, most men utterly oblivious) is so evil yet FGM (mostly inflicted, serious side-effects, mostly enforced by women) is, well, a matter of honouring different cultures … I would actually welcome (for once) her opinion. I’d note that she has form approving of gender segregation for “cultural reasons”.
Anyone who uses the term “genderqueer” deserves no mercy whatsoever.
I had a hilarious email forwarded to me today by a colleague. He was working on a project run by a consortium of Russians, French, and Norwegians based in Moscow with the Russians being the major shareholder (the gas field is in Russia).
As is normal in Russian companies, the Communications Department decided to brighten things up by holding a “Ladies in Spring” photo contest, whereby female employees were invited to submit pictures of themselves in springtime with flowers. Quite a few pictures of outrageously good looking Russian girls were entered, before first a Norwegian man, and then a Norwegian woman, went apeshit, saying the whole contest was degrading to women who had fought hard to earn respect and equality in the workplace.
The problem is, Russian women aren’t interested in western feminism, they like being feminine and ladylike, and submitting pictures of themselves with flowers. The Norwegian woman said “March 8th is a day when women celebrate being equal with men”. Erm, not in Russia: there women sit back and wait for men to buy them flowers and champagne, congratulate them on their beauty, and then go off and get smashed. Nothing to do with equality, and it was the Russians who started it this whole International Women’s Day (or at least made it a national holiday).
The funny thing is, we are always being told to be tolerant of other cultures, particularly when in their country…and nobody thought to hold even basic cultural awareness sessions for this consortium. But it’s doubly funny because the rules state that the Norwegian should have respected the Russian cultural norm of having their women send in flower pictures; never before have I seen a foreigner so openly attack a cultural norm in such a manner, and I’m sure she only got away with it because it was a feminist issue.
I also have the sneaky suspicion that the objections arose due to the quality of photos being sent in…had they been fat cows in shell suits, Miss Norway wouldn’t have said a word.
This seems perfectly reasonable:
“I believe that the presence of urinals in men’s rooms, along with a few stalls, allows these rooms to accommodate more users than women’s bathrooms for approximately the same cost of construction. Men would say that this is economic equality. Granted, economic considerations are valid, but I contend that economic claims mask the deep-rooted reasons for inequality of access: men’s desire to keep women at home.”
From Toilets as a Feminist Issue: A True Story, which I confess I haven’t read, here.
The funniest thing about Penny is that she doesn’t see the sword of Damocles hanging above her head. A tidal wave of razor-sharp conservative intellects is about to trample her into the dustbin of history like a swarm of Uzi-toting Wildebeest on crack-laced steroids. Indeed, the tidal wave already has, on multiple occasions (see archives here). And she blithely continues spouting her nonsense to an international audience, year after year. After year. After year.
From Toilets as a Feminist Issue: A True Story, which I confess I haven’t read
Thanks for that link Nikw, I’ve skimmed it and it’s as bonkers as you might expect. This for instance
I am sure some men find public urinals offensive.
Perhaps my male friend is so uncomfortable in public toilets because he
fears that his neighbors at the urinals are covertly comparing their genitals
to his, urinal curve notwithstanding. If this is the case, then the men most
likely to use public restrooms are either those who are secure enough that
they do not care about the size of their genitals or anyone else’s, or those
men who like to look at men’s genitals. Either way, perhaps women should
spend more time looking at who is using the men’s room.
Of course the possibility that blokes use urinals because they need a piss is too fanciful to contemplate.
Here’s the lowdown on what it’s really all about, from a sporting perspective but definitely applicable in all circumstances it’s the only way to get a proper measure of a chap.
http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/alastair-cook-opts-for-the-end-urinal/2014/06/18/
Don’t send this link to Penny.
http://takimag.com/article/feminism_as_a_mating_strategy_among_beta_males_jim_goad/print#axzz35V6uvBPc
Of course the possibility that blokes use urinals because they need a piss is too fanciful to contemplate.
Buh-ha ha ha ; – )
When I see all these sullen dorks standing like political prisoners holding their “I NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE…” signs, I wish that one of them could be honest and say they need feminism because they’re not naturally attractive to women.
Ouch. Reminds me of this strapping alpha male, who was ostentatiously fretting about whether his straightness might be oppressing people on Twitter.
“I believe that the presence of urinals in men’s rooms, along with a few stalls, allows these rooms to accommodate more users than women’s bathrooms for approximately the same cost of construction. Men would say that this is economic equality.”
No. Men would say it’s because urinals are smaller than cubicles.
Men would say it’s because urinals are smaller than cubicles.
And that these small urinals suffice because no disrobing is involved for male urination.
I attended a software conference once and lo, the men’s bathrooms had long lines whereas the women’s bathrooms were practically empty.
First time I’d seen that.
To be honest, LP strikes me as a typically narcissistic attention-seeker, probably with a form of NPD. She writes this stream-of-consciousness bullshit to impress her audience and to gain approval.
There are so many of these deranged poseurs on the arty/pseudo-intellectual left that she has just succeeded in making a name for herself.
What is depressing is discovering that otherwise sensible women fall for this rubbish.