Up steps the latest victim
Suzanne Moore has a lot of sympathy for Niall Ferguson and other endangered guys like him.
Up steps the latest victim, poor Niall Ferguson, author, history professor and lover of empire, who wrote in the Sunday Times that he had to endure a “disproportionately vitriolic response” for organising a conference that featured only white male historians. How he has suffered, I can only imagine.
Jordan Peterson, another minor academic, became major simply by outlining how wrong we are to talk of the various ways in which western culture has been deemed oppressive to women. Excuse me, but didn’t Camille Paglia do that 20 years ago?
To such men, any notion of inclusiveness, or of the dread “diversity”, becomes a threat. The very presence of women, except as tokens, is difficult and somehow invasive for such men. Never mind the debate over trans women in women-only spaces, the issue here is really one of any women at all in any space.
The brand of truth-telling these battle-scarred men are revered for situates men as both always naturally in control but as now having to fight for their position.
Or not so much having to fight for their position as having to fight not to hear it. They don’t want to hear it; they’re sick of it; they wish we would shut up already. They don’t hate women, ok? They like women just fine. They try to include some women, when they remember, and it always turns out the women have to polish the baby that day or something so they say no so what are the poor men supposed to do? Think of even more women to invite? That would be a superhuman effort, and no one can expect that – so enough already. We know; everybody knows; we do our best, when we think of it; now stop pointing out how absent-mindedly sexist we still are and let us get on with the conversation we’re having with these nice gentlemen here.
The call to victimhood of this “endangered” species is heard everywhere, from Nigel Farage to John Humphrys to Jeremy Clarkson to Piers Morgan. These men who dare to speak out are everywhere in public life, at the top of every organisation, having meetings about how to employ more women. They are forced into this by Europe, modernity or some godawful HR directive. They like to say they care about FGM or the massacre of the Rohingya, but see complaints about equal access or equal pay as white noise.
Or not so much white noise as excruciatingly irritating high-pitched complaining by ungrateful bitches who weren’t on the list of women they remembered to ask.
Well try and see it from The point of view of the likes of Peterson or Ferguson. If you want to be in the top
100100,000 of your profession and you’re ranked down near the bottom somewhere, letting in women and POC who actually have merit, might knock you out of your spot.Now that would be a tragedy and a terrible wrong…
I’m just finishing Michael Kimmel’s Angry White Men. These men embody that book perfectly. The whole idea of aggrieved entitlement is embodyed by men like Niall Ferguson and Jordan Peterson (not to mention James Damore…and all the men who howl whenever someone dares to mention that atheist conferences should have codes of conduct). If you haven’t read it yet, you should, though be prepared to groan at some of the statements he made a few years ago that have been rendered the exact opposite of prescient by this last election.
It’s worse than the combined screech of a leaf blower and a pressure washer at the same time. It’s unbearable for them. Just unbearable. Poor victims. . .
Hahahahaha well-chosen simile.
:D :D :D
Anyway you just can’t expect equal numbers because you know most women would rather be polishing the baby. It’s science.
Let us, then, hear a small cheer for Jim Al-Khalili, professor of theoretical physics and chair in the public engagement in science, University of Surrey. (More at royalsociety.org, Wikipedia)
In addition to much else he has managed to have a guest list of interesting scientists which is 50/50 men and women on his radio series The Life Scientific. I suspect that there are still more women academics in history than there are in science but there you go!
Perhaps these guys could ask Jim how he does it.
Well, they should just be clear about what a ‘proportionately vitriolic’ response would be. We wouldn’t want to waste surplus vitriol we could use elsewhere.
Proportionately vitriolic means we bow down in wonder and amazement at their unique and wonderful selves and the marvelous conference they’ve put together, and the fact that they tried to invite women, and if only those pesky women were willing to work as hard and long as the men, they would have come, so shut up already okay?
“… most women would rather be polishing the baby. It’s science.”
Equally scientific: most men would be down in the workshop sanding the baby.
YNNB: are you kidding? Sanding the baby? No way, man! Babies are women’s work.
But sanding is manly! Polishing is done after sanding.
We won’t go into the earlier bits involving saws, hammers and nails….
Besides, if we botch the job, we’re never asked to do it again.