Saturday, June 03, 2006

Really, Ms Bennett!

At some point I should really get back to saying something intelligent about politics but the temptation to comment on this was too much [Thanks to Paul Linford for the link]. And the sisterhood of women political bloggers... or (broading the field slightly) political bloggers who are not MM-WASPs demands it, where MM stands for 'male' and 'middle-aged'.

Not sure what Catherine Bennett is taking such exception too. It seems to be a generalised rant about a lack of female ploggers. Since women aren't being dragged kicking and screaming from their laptops by a fur-clad chappie with a club then it's really just a personal preference issue. But Catherine Bennett doesn't think this is good enough. If women aren't choosing to do something then:

a ) There must be something so uncool about the whole endeavour that a woman wouldn't do it if dragged kicking and screaming to a laptop by her hair: scorn must be heaped upon it from high. Or else:

b ) Men must be informally excluding women from the joys of writing about John Prescott's no-pun-intended-really redefinition of giving his diary secretary a brief.

Otherwise someone might think women, on average, might have slightly different interests to men. When I say, on average, I mean, on average. And, on average, the average Canadian citizen has one testicle. Acknowledging that women, on average, might be a bit different to men in some important ways (no s**t, sherlock) might mean only a short drop down the slippery slope before women are back wearing metal chastity belts whilst chained to the sink. So Catherine Bennett gallantly seeks evidence that 'allegedly progressive men are really betraying the cause of female liberation by being misogynist pig-dogs online' and 'blogging is on par with bird-watching and train-spotting anyway so even if allegedly progressive male bloggers weren't sexist pig-dogs then women wouldn't want to join their geeky little party'... and fails miserably.

Exhibit A:

Bloggers believe themselves, no less than any freemason, or member of the Garrick Club, to be addressing male members of a male-dominated community, in which female partners are comedy figures known as "the wife" (or "Mrs Fawkes", or "Mrs Ablution"),

Catherine Bennett hasn't visited any almost all-women discussion forums recently or she'd discover that women routinely describe their partners as OH (other half), Mr [insert name] or 'hubbie'. I think it's a bit twee but each to their own. Trying to dress it up as anything else is stretching the point to plastic failure.

Exhibit B:

fellow members can be depended on for companionable chit-chat about music, fallen arches, barbecues, rambling, weights, wanking

Whereas women never buy new bikes or go walking or have a BBQ or even, forbid, listen to music (or wank...). And if they did, they'd never tell anyone else about it.

Exhibit C:

Even the most respectable blogs, operated by professional, award-winning progressives, like to show commitment to this mission with devil-may-care asides about porn, notes on the ugliness of women commentators, the beauty of young waitresses, or remarks - as on Guido Fawkes - on the "totty situation".

Women are only ever attracted to men for their enlightened views on feminism. Their physical appearance is entirely irrelevant and thus no woman would ever comment on the totty-quotient of any TV program or quib that for the TV dramatisation of John Prescott's affair, the wardrobe team were considering borrowing a costume off George Lucas.

Ms Bennett - it is a fact universally acknowledged that a woman has never been so offended in her life!


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home