Izzard’s descent into boorish sexism
Victoria Smith on Izzard and not being trendy:
Like many, I saw Izzard as someone who got it, who understood that women, like men, are full, complete human beings, not a set of stereotypes to be put on and taken off at will. Izzard’s descent into boorish sexism has surprised me; I thought he was better than that. Then again, his boorishness is in fashion, whilst the resistance of women such as [Rosie] Duffield and me is forever out of date.
…
Whilst numerous studies have indicated that younger men are no less sexist than their fathers — that, on the contrary, they may be more so — this has not dented the view that the young, supported by older males such as Izzard, have a more sophisticated understanding of sex and gender than their boring old mummies, who still believe that statements such as “I campaign for politics in girl mode … I just switch, change, take off your heels, flat shoes” smack of male chauvinism.
It’s the myth of eternal progress. People get more enlightened, aware, awake, with every generation – hell with every week, every day, every hour. We’ll be perfected just in time for climate armageddon.
What’s actually happening is just people chasing new fashions. It’s no more enlightened than that.
We need to distinguish between what is fashionable and what is actually a challenge to existing power structures. There is something insane about the idea that young people have cracked the code to millennia of misogyny and it is … rehabilitating the word “women” so it includes the proper humans — the ones who have penises — and not letting female people organise as a class, because that way everyone will forget to exploit them. This is fashionable, but what does it actually change?
Well, it makes everything worse; will that do?
My own view is that older women are the true gender radicals, both inherently — as the act of ageing subverts the link between femaleness and youth-coded femininity — and actively, in our willingness to challenge male entitlement even when it lowers our social status to do so. When we are told we are out of date, we’re really being told to get on board with a shiny, all-new iteration of patriarchy. Feminism for female people is old! Shut up and listen to an ageing comedian tell you why the most basic rules — female people exist, matter and deserve resources for themselves — no longer apply!
An ageing male comedian at that, dress or no dress.
Gender fluidity is supposed to operate in a way similar to the great invisible hand of the free market, sorting everyone into their ideal, true self roles without anything so inconvenient and restrictive as male people being told they’ll have to give things up as opposed to gaining access to even more stuff.
Older women are the eternally uncool mummies, pointing out that no, it will take more than changing pronouns and shoes to end violence and redistribute wealth and power. Patriarchy is the eternally raging teenager, convinced he’s invented the same structures used by his dad, and his dad before him.
Lecture us all you like. Tell us we need to get with the programme. The changes that happen — the ones that actually transform lives — are enacted by those who don’t care about appeasing 21st century sexists. Your tactics might be novel; your aims haven’t moved on at all.
Props on the makeup though.
Damn. I wish I’d said that.
The myth that history is a directed progression aimed at some goal, the so-called “end of history”, is at the core of philosophy on the Left going back to https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HegHis>Hegel.
As I like to say, progress isn’t caused by the passage of time.
…and then we’ll finally be on the “right side of history” along with the trilobites, and dinosaurs, and megalodons, and mammoths, and saber tooth tigers, and…
iknklast – I wish I’d said that multiple times with every Victoria Smith piece I ever read. She’s got a genius for hitting the nail on the head.
#1 and #4: me too.
She does it again and again.
Yes. In every piece. There’s that pleasing thud of the arrow hitting the target.
Nullius #2. It is not simply at the core ‘of philosophy on the Left’, it was, and is, at the core of among other things the push for ever more industrialisation and technical progress, as well as colonialism.