Textbook narcissistic rage
I missed this two years ago – someone called Flavia Dzodan wrote a nasty misogynist piece attacking a list of feminist women for crimes like getting paid for writing articles. Ross Wolfe wrote a post in response titled, aptly, Identity and Narcissism. (I see a lot of that combination these days.)
So it would seem that Flavia Dzodan — an Amsterdam-based marketing consultant — denounced me last night. All this as part of a highly-public (online) breakdown of staggering proportions. Not just me, of course. Quite a few others were likewise singled out for abuse in Dzodan’s hate-filled tirade, endearingly titled “I hate you all media vultures.” Most of those she called out were well-known feminists: Louise Pennington, Laurie Penny, Michelle Goldberg, Becca Reilly-Cooper, Glosswitch, Helen Lewis, Meghan Murphy, Julie Bindel, and Gia Milinovich.
Funny thing, I’m friendly with all those women now, and get to share in their jokes. I have all the luck.
In a roughly thousand word blogpost, dripping with invective, she accuses everyone of profiting at her expense. We’re “media whores,” according to Dzodan, “the top of a vat of turds floating in our own media shit.” By contrast, she and her supporters are “the bootstraps we pull in the hopes of rising to the top,” since we’ve allegedly co-opted her language, ideas, and freedom.
It’s always nice when a woman calls a bunch of women “whores.”
What originally set her off was just a casual remark about a picture someone sent me of Flavia after I said the impression I got from her website photo was that she was “white.” Didn’t mean anything by it. Seemed reasonable to me considering her last name sounded Serbo-Croatian — something Slavic from the Balkan peninsula. Anyway, the photo I received afterward only confirmed my initial impression…Going from the picture above, I have to say that if I saw her on the street I’d probably just assume she’s white. That doesn’t mean she is white, or that she identifies as white. Just means that she looked white to me. Unfortunately for everyone involved, merely stating my opinion resulted in her throwing an epic tantrum across the Twitterverse. Reilly-Cooper later noted, correctly, that Flavia’s whole reaction was almost “textbook narcissistic rage.”
That sounds familiar. It sounds like the epic tantrums that a few people like to throw if someone accidentally uses a “wrong” pronoun to refer to them.
Wolfe goes on to a little parenthetical meditation on narcissism, citing Christopher Lasch.
Today’s networked political theater finds a different stage, not in the streets but in the depthless realm of cyberspace. It would be too neat an inversion to take very seriously, but the temptation is there all the same: Could Frantz Fanon’s disquisition on Black Skin, White Masks have finally turned back on itself, so that an emancipatory politics subjectivity can only be articulated from the standpoint of the most oppressed? Perhaps a kind of “white skin, black masks” approach to radicalization? This insight would hardly be limited to Flavia Dzodan, extending to many white radicals for whom the only authentic form of struggle is that of “the Other.” Mike Ely of the Kasama Project comes to mind as the sort of archetypal whiteboy who likes to call other whiteboys “crackers,” in some vain throwback to 1960s black nationalism.
That’s probably even more popular now – as in all those white feminist women who like to rage at what they furiously call “white feminism.”
Meghan Murphy also wrote a piece about Dzodan’s public tantrum: My feminism will reject misogynistic screeds, or it will be bullshit. That title made me laugh, because the reason I became aware of Dzodan at all is because people keep posting and re-posting that stupid meme “My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit” and attributing it to her…as if it were so profound and so original that it had to be attributed to someone, when in fact it’s just a stupid internetty blurt. What a tragic source of fame.
On to Murphy’s post.
A number of feminist writers, myself included, were attacked and defamed online (yet again) in an abhorrently hateful and misogynist diatribe today. Many women spoke out, naming the vitriolic words as sexist, ad hominem attacks, professional jealousy, and manipulation.
We were called “media whores” and “turds” who had no ethics, humanity, or compassion (an ironic accusation when stated within a completely unethical post maligning female writers and journalists, dehumanizing them, and calling them a bunch of hateful, misogynist names). We were accused of selling out and of the crime of *gasp* being paid for some our work.
The author writes:
“I hate you all Glosswitches, booblediboops [sic], Laurie Pennys, Louise Penningtons, Julie Bindels, Megan Murphys [sic], Michelle Goldbergs and your ilk. The B Classes of white feminism fighting tooth and nail for a place at the table. At our expense. With your writing commissions, the coins tossed in your direction by the men who own the media you so desperately want to be part of.”
Not all of the women she lists are paid writers or journalists, for starters — and the author seems to have a completely deluded understanding of how much money one makes doing freelance writing (hint: not very much!). Beyond that, it is pretty appalling to attack women for being paid for their work. Is that not the very opposite of what we are fighting for?
Oh no no no – feminism is all about continuing the grand old tradition whereby women’s work is never paid, because it’s not “work” in that sense, it’s just what they do out of their throbbing maternal instinct plus their innate talent for getting stains out of bathtubs.
To be clear (though it shouldn’t have to be said), this is not about “righteous anger” nor is it about people “speaking out” nor is it about “critique.” There is NO critique here. There are no politics here. These are sexist, unethical, manipulative attacks and I am sick to death of fellow progressives or feminists defending them. This is indefensible.
And yet…Flavia Dzodan invented the unique, irreplaceable combination of words, “My feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit,” so everything else she ever said is also perfect, yes including calling women “whores.” Get with the program.
And if people are supporting this behaviour out of fear, it’s time to look at that. Because if you are afraid and staying silent out of fear, something is wrong. Because, as the ever-on point Glosswitch wrote, “my feminism is not about being afraid.” Because you know who rules and controls and silences women through fear? Abusive men. Met any? Recognize that feeling of walking on eggshells, never quite sure when you will become the target of an attack? Yeah. That’s what the patriarchy does. It forces us to live in fear and stay silent because of it. It teaches us to take up as little space as possible in the hope that we will go unnoticed and, therefore, safe from attack. This shouldn’t be the goal or outcome of feminism.
Both Glosswitch and I have said it before, and who knows how many more times and how many more of us will need to say it again, but if your activism is focused on vicious, concerted efforts to silence women, you’re not doing feminism, you’re doing misogyny. And I promise you — I fucking guarantee you this — supporting bullies won’t protect you. It will not save you from being bullied yourself. Because some day you’ll step out of line and become the target yourself.
Truth.
How about my feminism will be first and foremost about women or it will be bullshit?
Ah no no no no, we can’t have that. The whole point is that it has to be about everyone else or it will be bullshit. Why isn’t that expected of all social justice movements? Why is it only women who are expected to put everyone else first, even in movements for women’s rights? Uh…because women are so much nicer than everyone else? Because women are such bitches? One of those, maybe.
“[S]tupid meme” and “internetty blurt.”
Heh. Your casual dismissal of this unquestioned doctrine will surely drive the batshittery into overdrive.
She’s a marketing consultant and she’s attacking writers and editors for being successful. Somehow for me that adds an extra layer of whatdafuck.
The implication seems to be that they are traitors being paid by the patriarchy. As though Reilly-Cooper (boodle oops is her Twitter address), Bindel, Glosswitch et al are spreading views which are useful to the patriarchy. How ridiculous. It’s conspiracist nonsense.
I couldn’t help but notice in Dzodan’s original piece that after her expressions of hate for other feminists, she expressed sympathy for Hugo Schwyzer, of all people.
Yep. It fits, though, doesn’t it.
My intersectionality will be feminist or it will be bullshit.
I’m gonna keep saying that until it catches on.
I sincerely hope it does.
I like “My bullshit will be feminist or it will be intersectional. If that’s OK with everyone else. Sorry. Please.”
We definitely need to overuse “My X will be Y or it will be bullshit” to the point of absurdity. To the point of absurdity that the formula is. Nothing kills a stupid phrase better than making it annoying. Anyone still hear “all your base are belong to us?” Nope.
It certainly does. It’s one of a series of nigh unbelievable coincidences where raging against other women and calling them whores serves the interests of people with penises, people commonly (and recently controversially) known as “men.”
My pizza will be pepperoni or it will be bullshit.
Some people’s “feminism” manages to be both intersectional AND bullshit.
My parochialism will be subregional or it will be bullshit.
My ageism will be generational or it will be bullshit.
My onanism will be ejaculational or it will be bullshit
My alcoholism will be transnational or it will be bullshit.
My astigmatism will be bidirectional or it will be bullshit.
My pedestrianism will be positional or it will be bullshit.
My parasitism will be situational or it will be bullshit.
My classicism will be septentrional or it will be bullshit.
My amateurism will be semiprofessional or it will be bullshit.
My aneurism will be non-dissectional or it will be bullshit.
My antidisestablishmentarianism will be pro-clerical or it will be bullshit.
My chimerism will be connectional or it will be bullshit.
My ecumenicalism will be interdenominational or it will be bullshit.
My thromboembolism will be aggregational or it will be bullshit.
My teetotalism will be gestational or it will be bullshit.
My absurdism will be irrational or it will be bullshit.
I could keep this up for hours, just with -ism and -al wordsthat actually make some kind of sense together, but finally:
My cowpat will be bovine excrement or it will be bullshit.
My propensity to unquestioningly accept vapid memes as doctrine will be opaque to you or you will call me on my bullshit.
Racialized fury trumps women’s rights, every time.
Dzodan has apologised for using the word “whores” because that feeds into the stigma surrounding sex workers and she doesn’t want to do that.
Still standing by the fact she hates Laurie Penny and Julie Burchill, etc.
I was wondering “why such an irrational outburst?” She has just received a very bad health diagnosis.
So, nothing wrong with it being gendered then… that’s nice. Another intersectional feminist whose feminism doesn’t intersect with feminism.
‘Had’, not ‘has’, surely? It’s part of the original blog post from February 2014. So? Who but a narcissist, upon receiving such bad health news, would seek to take their distress out on women who had nothing to do with it?
I read some of her blog (??? the ‘about’ section of the blog says nothing about gender or pronouns, but does have a picture of someone who looks like a white woman, who elsewhere claims to be a WoC). It is the blog of a person who apparently doesn’t think that the phrase ‘free speech’ has the legal meaning that her government cannot arrest her for questioning governmental actions; it is the blog of someone who appears to think that it means that she can say whatever she likes, publicly, and no-one is allowed to disagree with, let alone write about or quote from, what she has written in public.
It also seems to be the blog of someone who thinks that everyone should go around wondering how someone else ‘identifies’, paying no heed to how they appear.
It looks like the blog of someone who is determined to win the Oppression Olympics at all costs.
tiggerthewing: not making excuses for her, just explaining the irrationality to myself.
I think she is not so much wanting to win the Oppression Olympics, as determined to be the Holiest-than-everyone-else.
I stopped reading her posts shortly after she took over Tiger Beatdown. It was always about her polyamorous tattoos.
Or was that someone else?
There are currently three voices in the battle for feminism, not counting the elephant in the room.
There are those who have been involved in active feminism for decades. Generally older women, some have managed, with immense struggles, to have a small voice in the wider world too. Those few who have managed to earn enough from their writings to make a contribution to their costs of living are even rarer. Of course, some women have managed to earn a little more by capitulating in some way to the patriarchy; even so, what they can earn from writing is a drop in the bucket compared to what men are paid. Because the loudest handful are white, many people accuse the whole movement of excluding women of colour – ironically thereby erasing the voices of those very WoC who have been active from the beginning.
Then there are those comparatively newly on the scene – firstly young white women, who are seeking to make a name for themselves and have been very disappointed to discover how much harder that is than they first thought. Even if they try to sound fresh and new by writing about being ‘sex-positive’ or ‘intersectional’, they are finding that getting any kind of paid work is almost impossible if you are female, and being a feminist of any stripe, even one willing to make concessions, only makes it harder.
Then there are the young women of colour, who see how hard it is to get their voices heard and blame white women for stealing the voices and stories of WoC, of gaining publicity for their writings on the backs of WoC.
The young WoC blame the young white women for taking their place at the table.
The young white women point the finger at the old women, claiming that it is they who have stolen all the places, telling them to shut up and let others speak.
And neither group will listen to what the old women are actually saying, which is:
“Look at the elephant in the room! Instead of fighting over who has the largest crumbs, and demanding that they cede their share, look at who is stealing the whole damned cake!”
When a young woman writes a frothing rant about how old white women are denying her a voice by hogging the largest crumbs, it is obvious that, for her at least, the elephant has become too big to see. When she starts defending one of the agents of the patriarchy as a victim of feminism, it’s as if the world has turned inside out – the elephant is so big, indeed, that her inability to focus on it has led to her doubting its very existence.