I've read Martha Gill's piece in the New Statesman three times now and I still don't get it. The title itself is weird: "CAPITAL LETTERS, affectedly boisterous sex, little girl voice: internet feminists all write the same. This is a problem." I mean, I know I occasionally use capital letters when angry but I'm fairly sure that's not restricted to feminists since everyone online knows that capitals means shouting. It's hardly a shocking revelation or evidence feminists write as the Borg.
Gill is really, really keen on this idea that feminists have the same writing style. I'm sure if she gave actual names of feminist members of the Borg, we could discuss this but Gill went with the nameless smear rather than actual evidence technique. Maybe I've been reading the wrong feminists but Caitlin Moran and Chitra Nagarajan don't strike me as having similar writing styles, never mind similar theoretical understandings of feminism. I've definitely not read any blogs recently which give in depth descriptions of the various sexual practises of feminists but, going out on a limb here, I'd suggest the authors of Vagenda and Sisterhood is Powerful have very different stances on PIV and heteronormativity. This is, of course, ignoring the issue that some feminists are asexual. There is also that tiny issue of both Vagenda and Sisterhood is Powerful having multiple authors but since feminists write as the Borg this is probably irrelevant.
Normally, I'd ignore this article as just another tedious swipe at online feminism, which strikes me as a a bit odd since a number of the New Statesman bloggers are online feminists so it's rather like attacking themselves. I would have ignored but the second half of the article has absolutely nothing to do with the first. Well, except for the bit about being factually incorrect and lacking in evidentiary support of sweeping statements.
Gill doesn't content herself with making unsubstantiated claims about feminist writers. She uses her pet theory to peddle a whole load of seriously damaging rape myths. Apparently, Gill thinks rape myths can protect all women from being raped by following 'advice' about stranger rapes. Gill conveniently neglects that tidbit about most rape victims knowing their rapists and that stranger rapes count for less than 20% of rapes. How does Gill think a child can prevent their father from raping them? How can a woman prevent being raped by their partner on their own home? How can a woman prevent themselves from being raped by a stranger who broke into their own home? How can a woman protect themselves from being raped by their boss? Or, on their way home from work?
Statistically, women are safer from rape in the streets at 3 in the morning surrounding by complete strangers but that isn't the advice Gill is peddling. She's just joined an ever-increasing number publicly congratulating themselves on not being raped. The lack of empathy and intellectual engagement is astounding.
I can not believe the New Statesman printed an article which promotes rape myths.
The only people responsible for rape are rapists.
It doesn't matter what women wear or do or don't do.
The ONLY risk factor for rape is being in the presence of rapists.
It's lazy journalism to take a swipe at online feminism in order to peddle rape myths.
I expect better from the New Statesman.
After all, part of being a journalist is doing research and it's not that hard to find information on rape myths since Rape Crisis England/ Wales have written a handy guide to them here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment