Peter Hitchens in the Daily Mail above a photo of a woman in heavy eye makeup with carefully groomed eyebrows and flawless skin, wearing a niqab.
Behold my proposed new autumn look for women in politics. The black, I think, is flattering and it radiates an air of cool unapproachability. No Minister would put his hand on the knee of anyone dressed like this; indeed, he’d have trouble finding her knee, or anything else.
Well, isn’t this what you want, all you squawking flapping denouncers of groping men and ‘inappropriate’ jokes?
You have lots in common with Militant Islamists on this subject. They, too, believe that all men must be assumed to be slavering predators.
And these beliefs lie behind the severe dress codes and sexual segregation which modern liberals claim to find so shocking about Islam.
Yet on this, it turns out that you agree with them. Any male action, any form of words you choose to disapprove of can and will be presumed to be guilty because, well, men are like that. The culprit will be ruined for ever.
Yes, certainly, if we denounce men who unilaterally grope women, then we are endorsing and even demanding imposition of the niqab on women.
Or not.
Those aren’t the only possible options, actually. We all probably have experience of them: of working (niqab-free) with men who don’t grope without an invitation. I think that’s much of the point: women should be free to work and play and walk around in the world without wearing buckets over their heads and without being groped (or worse) by men who apparently think women are a public utility.
Hitchens is coat-trailing, as right-wing assholes so often do. (See: Brendan O’Neill.) He can’t really be stupid enough to think that objecting to sexual harassment=believing that all men must be assumed to be slavering predators. Harvey Weinstein appears to be a slavering predator; it does not follow that all men are. That’s not very difficult, surely.
Comments
22 responses to “Watch out, you’ll be wearing a burqa next!”
Says something about the working environment of the Daily Mail then. There’s a thing called “a professional working environment”. That is, you are courteous to your colleagues, and don’t make them feel uncomfortable. Nine out of ten people can master that without thinking that we’re about to have partition walls between the male and female part of the open-plan. They can also figure out what you to do on a night out with your colleagues when you’ve had a few is quite different from a boss leching after his female underlings.
Oh, that’s new. I didn’t know that “it’s perfectly possible for men to not harrass/assault women” means “all men are slavering beasts incapable of not harrassing/assaulting women”.
It must be because of my incomplete English skills, I’m after all not a native speaker.
It’s the Daily Male. Put it in a bucket.
Soooo – Hitchens is claiming that the alternative to an environment in which women can work with men without sexual harassment is… Saudi Arabia? And we’re the ones who’re too much like Militant Islamists? The freedom of Western civilization for which we’re to take to the barricades is the freedom to grope without consent?
It’s astoundingly stupid, even for the right, so I’m thinking I’ve got to have it wrong somehow. Hoping, anyway.
Sadly, Peter H. has always lived in the shadow of his brilliant and well to the left of him brother Christopher. Helluva place to be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens#Relationship_with_his_brother
As Amanda Marcotte noted, it’s an implicit threat: Shut the hell up, bitches, or we’ll take away your right to dress yourselves. You don’t know how good you have it.
I am a male.
I have had numerous female sex partners.
I often see a woman I find to be sexy, attractive, desirable.
I also understand that not all, perhaps only a very few, women see me in that light.
And I know about and accept boundaries, consent, mutual attraction.
It isn’t that hard to be a male and a decent person. It isn’t that hard to consider the needs and desires of others. It isn’t that hard to be considerate.
Paul Dacre the editor of the Daily Mail is a revolting guy who calls everyone “c**ts” so I take it Hitchens thinks that is what work places are like.
David Goodhart:- “Inability to distinguish hand on knee/sleazebag behaviour from rape/serious intimidation is typical of ideological (metropolitan) thinking”
Errr – the first should get you in serious trouble in the work place, the second a crime. Metropolitans and yokels would be mostly agreed on that.
I bet that’s even quite a common experience. It might even be almost universal – seeing someone you find sexy, attractive, desirable, and not assaulting them.
Replying to David @ 7 there.
In a high traffic environment with many simultaneous responses it can easily become a racy situation — as in race condition, that is. Computationally speaking ;-)
I work with a number of men I do not regard as slavering predators. That is because they do not act as slavering predators. They act as professional colleagues. Which is good, since a substantial portion of their student body is female.
It’s funny how these assholes never seem to have much of a problem with not sexually harassing other men (even men who don’t dress like the Phantom Blot). Only in the case of women is it soooo difficult to think of any alternative to either hiding them in sacks or crawling all over them like bowflies. Here’s an idea, guys:
If you wouldn’t behave that way towards another man, don’t behave that way towards a woman.
Try following this simple rule of thumb and see how far you get.
Not rocket science, is it..
And not only that, Bjarte, but women seem to be able to behave around men without crawling all over them (though, of course, there are women who don’t behave properly, that is not the norm, and is recognized as inappropriate when it happens – but then, that is women, and these folks probably think that it is not normal for women to make the moves on men).
Omar,
Have you ever watched the debate between Hitchens and Hitchens?
https://thegreatestdebate.wordpress.com/2014/11/05/christopher-hitchens-vs-peter-hitchens-on-god-war-politics-and-culture/
You have to feel sorry for Hitchens, I’m sure you can guess which one.
Christopher certainly had his faults but Peter…. wow.
I didn’t know Christopher had a brother…can I go back to not knowing that?
Peter’s view of men is almost as vulgar as his view of women.
Nan, no you may not, sorry. Because this, among many, many other things:
What a gent.
Isn’t driving women out of public space a HUGE part of the groping-catcalling motivation? Driving women down into the basement, where they’ll huddle in their burqas/niqabs behind painted-over windows, waiting for their owners to ferry them out into the world for whatever minimal chores are permitted them.
It used to be commonplace to say that rape was about violence rather than sex. This may have lost some of its appeal as a generalization, but it is probably more valid in describing the general level of harassment and bullying that saturates public life.
Gah, that “skewed” thing. He’s saying that there’s a “correct” way to think about drugs and a “skewed” one. His is the “correct” one, the “skewed” one is…. somehow…. due to homosexality. If only people wouldn’t go around being gay, we’d all have the One True view on drugs and the world would be saved.
OK, I’m stopping there before I evolve into a being of Pure Rage.
John
The variation I’m used to hearing is that rape is about power rather than sex. (Physical) violence isn’t always – or even most often (at least in the societies I’m most familiar with) – a component of rape, after all. The problem I’ve always had with this statement is that people use it to sound as though they have some profound insight into the nature of all the things.
OF COURSE it’s about power. Could have told you that. It’s blatantly obvious.
Now, what do we DO about that? Well, how about attacking the things that make that power possible? Heavens no, men wouldn’t be able to rape their wives or intimidate or otherwise coerce underlings into sexual acts. Can’t possibly have that, can we?
I’ve seen so many men grinning on panels and chat shows and news reports at their self-perceived genius in identifying the true (but by itself empty) concept that abuse might possibly have something to do with power and so few willing to take the next step.
John, reading back what I just wrote, it occurs to me that it might look like an attack on you. Very far from it. I just hate seeing people – especially men people – being called by the media to explain to the rest of us what rape and other sexual and violent assault is all about then sitting back and looking smug.
I’m not at all saying that’s what you did in your comment. Excuse my inability to write while fuming. Hitchens, P, generally has this effect on me ;)
Peter, I have happy news for you. You never, ever, ever have to write another word about ‘homosexuals’. You are welcome to expunge all those you have already written. As for having to read it, why, don’t you Christians always tell us atheists “If you don’t like it, don’t look at it”? So, there’s your solution. Don’t read it. Don’t write it. Don’t talk about it. Just ignore it, and live your life in the way that suits you without worrying about what other people are doing that doesn’t harm you.
Problem solved.