When you see them
One of the most peculiar accusations against me in Stephanie Zvan’s long, clotted, incoherent, pointlessly cryptic list of accusations (pointlessly because she said at the very end that she was talking about me so why all the “they” and “them” in the list of accusations?) was this one –
When you see them repeatedly deride feminine-identified clothing, grooming, and verbal expressions?
The question behind all the “when you” accusations was “what’s a blogger to do” – so apparently she thinks she ought to “do” something about my putative attitude to feminine-identified clothing, grooming, and verbal expressions. Why? Why would she have a duty to “do” something about that? What business is it of hers? Who asked her? Why would she need to take action on that, even assuming her heavily loaded description is accurate?
I could come up with a long list of Irritating Things About Stephanie Zvan if I wanted to, but why would I? It would be boring, just for one thing. It would also look…kind of…how shall I put this…horrible. Publishing a long, clotted, incoherent list of all the things you Don’t Like About Susan is just a dopy, embarrassing, childish, trashy thing to do. But I could if I wanted to, so neener, Mr Salteena said peevishly.
But the accusation about deriding all the things that are “feminine-identified” stuck in my mind and makes me curious. What the fuck is that even supposed to mean. Am I supposed to be “femmephobic” now, is that the idea? So I Googled femmephobia. One of the first items is an article by J. Bryan Lowder in Slate last March about a gay actor named Russell Tovey.
After a stimulating meditation on the actor’s newly fleshed-out physique, reporter Tom Lamont gets Tovey talking about his journey as a gay man, especially as it developed after a homophobic attack (triggered, Tovey reasons, by his wearing a cardigan) 10 years ago, which left him with a scar. Tovey’s story is harrowing, and the trauma he experienced must be taken seriously. That said, his processing of that trauma through damaging femmephobic rhetoric—the kind that values traditionally masculine-performing gay men above their more effeminate brothers—is a problem.
Ah, that – yes I’m aware of that, and it sucks.
If that were the end of the comments, I don’t think we’d be seeing so much outrage from gay writers and fans online. It’s this next bit, focused on Tovey’s early career and schooling, that is really drawing ire:
I was so envious of everyone who went to Sylvia Young Theatre School. I wanted to go but my dad flat-out refused. He thought I’d become some tapdancing freak without qualifications. And he was right in a way. I’m glad I didn’t go. That might have changed … I feel like I could have been really effeminate, if I hadn’t gone to the school I went to. Where I felt like I had to toughen up. If I’d have been able to relax, prance around, sing in the street, I might be a different person now. I thank my dad for that, for not allowing me to go down that path. Because it’s probably given me the unique quality that people think I have.
*clutches head*
What’s wrong with being able to relax, prance around, sing in the street?
The more men who do that the better, that’s what I say.
But then relaxing, prancing around, singing in the street – those are all good things. (Ceteris paribus – singing in the street is not so cool at 4 a.m., but you know what I mean so just behave yourselves.) Some “female-identified” practices are not such good things, in my view, and I think feminists are allowed to be critical of them. Footbinding used to be a “female-identified” practice in China and I don’t think it’s femmephobic to disapprove of footbinding. FGM is a “female-identified” practice in many places now; I frown on it; I don’t consider that femmephobic.
But it’s nice that Stephanie Zvan got all that out of her system, at least.
I was a fundie before. The rule was: if you fail to condemn someone, you’re guilty of whatever they did. Even in completely unrelated contexts, being civil to someone implicates you in anything they may have done in any other context.
So for example if someone leaves the church, and years later you see them at a wedding, you’re not allowed to greet them politely.
Well you know, apparently people asked her to get involved. So she had to. The same way apparently people asked Jason, Heina and Dana (and presumably others) to get involved. The difference is that Stephanie and the above named chose to get involved, for reasons best known to them. Whereas presumably others chose to ignore the request or declined to comment. Who knows. I found the whole reaction quite bizarre frankly. The only blogger who I expected involvement from was Zinnia Jones, and in that case Heather’s response so poorly reasoned and researched as to be a nonsense (which for me devalued the obvious hurt and anger behind her writing). In some respects that was a shame as a factually correct and reasoned response from that source might have actually led to some light rather than heat.
As to the whole deriding the femme thing I can only assume Stephanie is referring to your comments re Caitlyn Jenner in Vogue? Oddly enough I think the attacks on you on that topic were the least rational of the lot. I mean woman (trans, gay, other or not) can be as feminine as they want. Not anybodies business really. But it is perfectly valid to question whether a woman has to present as exceptionally feminine in order to receive praise, adulation and respect (trans, gay, other or not). That was how I interpreted your writing on that topic.
Funny that a woman writing on woman’s issues couldn’t parse it in that way.
Earlier today I was reading Derrick Jensen’s response to getting deplatformed by OSU professors, and I kept thinking that the only surprising thing about his situation was that he was a he.
Turns out I now take for granted the seemingly endless, soulless, leaderless push to drive women with opinions off the web and out of the national and academic media with barrages of abuse and threats. Sort of like street crime doesn’t make the news anymore unless there’s something very peculiar about it or someone “important” is involved.
The push to silence women didn’t start with trans people and their allies and it’s in no way controlled by them, but a significant number of them seem intent on fueling it for their own gratification. That Jensen’s been added to the pyre is, I’m sure, no part of a gender-inclusiveness effort. If anything, he’s collateral damage. He himself recounts the abuse heaped on his fellow radical environmentalist, Lierre Keith.
Wish I had a protip for you like wear flash femme earrings or dye your hair pink and then the yammering will die down, but that hasn’t worked for Anita Sarkeesian or Rebecca Watson, has it? Kind of seems like there has to be something bad, evil, disgusting, intolerable about you — even if it has to be invented as a scoldy, judgy, petty little snipe. Then, as Jensen recounts, the accusation drops into a Cheney-esque cycle of being planted in one place so that the accuser can speak loftily about it as an established fact, clearing the way for round after round of exaggeration and distortion, without any evidence ever being required to substantiate the character assassination. I guess pretty soon you’ll be a serial killer who’s ax-murdered dozens of women for wearing bras and high heels but the police just let you go on killing because they all hate girlie things, too.
I’m very glad you had such a good site to return to and I hope the purity trolls will focus elsewhere now and leave you to do your work and share it as though the recent, saner past of intellectual discourse wasn’t even past. (h/t Faulkner)
Just one very pertinent bit about halfway down in Jensen’s piece, emphasis mine:
I think the bit about deriding feminine identified whatevers is one of the standard feminist-silencing tactics: if you say that, say, you don’t like skirts, then you must be attacking all the women who wear skirts, and if you’re criticizing women then you must be anti-women and no feminist yourself so hush. Weird to have it come from Zvan, though.
Not all that weird. I meant it when I said I could come up with a long list if I wanted to. She has no scruples.
And now Richard Carrier has weighed in, as though his thoughts were needed at all. First he gives Zvan a big shout out for her wonderful summary of events. Then he shits all over you and slobbers all over his FTB chums.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Righteous assholery at its best. They’re all so superior and high-and-mighty, singing from that same hymn book and amen-ing at the same sermons. Too bad you just never got really God, Ophelia. You could still be hanging out with the cool kids.
Despite the fact that you were doing it the whole time, just look at where all that thinky stuff got you. And though they didn’t ask for it, you have been properly excised from their cult, praise-be-to-goodness and all that’s right and proper in the world. Amen.
So many lies in that post.
And this ludicrous claim –
He CHECKED? Checked what? Checked how? He sure as fuck hasn’t checked with me. Most of her list isn’t even checkable, it’s just interpretation and tea leaves.
I am so disappointed in so many of the FtB bloggers. Add another one.
Ophelia, I know this whole thing has been upsetting to you, but you should be glad you’re free of that hideous cult. As far as I’m concerned, being lied about and shunned by those people is a badge of honor.
Oh, I am, I’m very glad. I love being back here, with NO ADS and no creepy colleagues.
Meh, while Carrier has his strengths (what was the quote describing him the other day? “Never met an argument he couldn’t bludgeon to death in 10,000 words”), on so many social justice issues he comes across like an over eager puppy who is always a little late to the party. Not saying he doesn’t believe what he says, just that the impression I’ve had has always been that before speaking he has tested which way the wind was blowing and adopted the position most likely to ingratiate himself with the in crowd. His post on A+ demonstrated that nicely (http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207).
I think of femmephobia as that concept that we’re all oh so familiar with, the one where The Worst Possible Thing a dude can be is girly. It’s better to be literally anything than to be girly. Better to be a racist asshole, better to be a cheating athlete, better to be a greedy banker. But watch musicals? Gross, girls do that. Cry? Gross, girls do that. Touch penises? Gross, girls do that.
It describes what this Tovey person is doing, yes. Doesn’t seem to describe blogging about how you hate wearing lipstick, though.
Jeff, you imagine that FTB is a hideous cult to which Ophelia was beholden?
<snicker>
I think I found what they want!
I confess to almighty
GodIntersectionalityand to you, my brothers and sisters and agender sblings,
that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done and in what I have failed to do,
(and, striking their breast, they say:)
through my fault, through my fault, throughout my most grievous fault,
..
John Morales – Yeah, what I said was a bit overblown. But I do believe there is a cultish mentality there.
Thanks, Jeff.
On-topic, I find it notable that Richard Carrier admits the antipathy by Stephanie (and others) was based on mere suspicion.
Ah, dang, John Morales @19, that’s a great catch.
I followed Richard carrier’s blog for a while, and tried to read his book. I found him pretty boring, couldn’t get past the first chapter of the book, and rarely finished his blog posts.
But more than that, I don’t like him for things like calling a commenter feminazi-ish, which I don’t consider a valid label in any context, and strongly implying that everyone is naturally polyamorous, but we’re too brainwashed and prudish to admit it. Plus he’s self absorbed, as demonstrated in Ophelia’s comments. So I give him very little credit when it comes to his “supportive ally” statements.
At this point the driving force behind FTB content is Mano and PZ; all the little “I barely-post-at-all-but-how-dare-you-Ophelia” folk are dedicating the bulk of what meager content they produce to continuing to bash Ophelia and anyone else who would dare question the gender binary, while otherwise producing little if anything of value.
Why Richard felt it necessary to chime in at this time (beyond the aforementioned reasons) is unthinkable.
I saw Carrier’s piece and just felt frustrated that he felt the need to join the bandwagon. A couple of weeks ago I tried to point out that Ophelia is more of an ally and that there are ways of having discussion without causing someone to become defensive. One person agreed but a lot of people didn’t want to think about how to have a productive discussion. A person can express his/her views about transgenderism without bashing another person in the process. In any case, I’m glad Ophelia’s blog is still around because I have learned about so many issues, especially the international issues like the Bengladeshi bloggers, witch hunting in Africa, etc.
That’s Carrier’s MO. Act like everything he says has been extensively researched and verified. Notice he complains Svan didn’t provide any links, says that’s okay because he checked her accusations himself, and then fails to provide the links?
Then, later he does provide some links, supposedly to verify your transphobia. I doubt many of his readers bother to actually click those links, but here’s and excerpt from the first one.
“The more I think about the ontology of gender, the less I think I understand it. It’s slippery. That makes it impossible to answer yes/no questions about it.
But politically? Do you mean, will I take trans people’s word for it? Will I use their right names and pronouns? Of course I will. Do I want to make them jump through hoops to prove something to me? Of course not.”
Why Ophelia, that’s positively *monstrous*. No wonder Carrier looks down his nose at you.
The link for Carrier’s most outrageous lie – that I “refused to denounce” the UN letter – is just to the home page, so not exactly a usable link.
Perhaps you were called “they” and “them” in the sense of, “Well, if Ophelia is questioning the validity of gender, NO gendered pronouns for Ophelia!”