This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/26/one-rule-for-men-another-for-women-over-drink

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Why is it one rule for men and another for women over drink? Why is it one rule for men and another for women over drink?
(about 5 hours later)
Why does the idea of drunk women continue to annoy and disgust certain people far more than the idea of drunk men? An international study on alcohol consumption published in the Lancet had some interesting findings, including that, contrary to popular belief/government guidelines, there’s no “safe” drinking level. Take that, smug, deluded fine-wine sippers, who seem to think expensive plonk is some kind of liver-enriching vitamin. Why does the idea of drunk women continue to annoy and disgust certain people far more than the idea of drunk men? An international study on alcohol consumption published in the Lancet had some interesting findings, including that, contrary to popular belief/government guidelines, there is no “safe” drinking level. Take that, smug, deluded fine-wine sippers, who seem to think expensive plonk is some kind of liver-enriching vitamin.
It also reported that British women are unique in drinking as much as their male counterparts, with some older women (particularly the better educated) hanging on to “ladette” drinking habits. All of which should get the moral majority up in arms.It also reported that British women are unique in drinking as much as their male counterparts, with some older women (particularly the better educated) hanging on to “ladette” drinking habits. All of which should get the moral majority up in arms.
While I’m Madame Near-Sobriety these days (I just couldn’t take the bloodcurdling, middle-aged hangovers), all my concerns about overconsumption revolve around safety, both in the drunken moment and long term. So I’ll worry about intoxicated women falling prey to predators or increasing their risk of breast cancer, but there’s no moral element. And purely on a physiological basis, it’s unwise for women to drink as much as men.While I’m Madame Near-Sobriety these days (I just couldn’t take the bloodcurdling, middle-aged hangovers), all my concerns about overconsumption revolve around safety, both in the drunken moment and long term. So I’ll worry about intoxicated women falling prey to predators or increasing their risk of breast cancer, but there’s no moral element. And purely on a physiological basis, it’s unwise for women to drink as much as men.
Indeed, it amazes me that there continues to be a censure reserved for female drunks that rarely, if ever, extends to men. This condemnation ranges in intensity from the “wine o’clock” mums dragging the cork out of the chablis early (to a ripple of tutting) all the way to “out of control” young women staggering through a raucous night out in Magaluf. (Cue a blizzard of “End of the World!” headlines in what should henceforth be known as the Daily Gilead.) While drunk men can attract criticism, women routinely attract far more. Female intoxication is often hyper-sexualised: the inebriated woman isn’t allowed to be merely drunk – she has to be a “drunken slut”.Indeed, it amazes me that there continues to be a censure reserved for female drunks that rarely, if ever, extends to men. This condemnation ranges in intensity from the “wine o’clock” mums dragging the cork out of the chablis early (to a ripple of tutting) all the way to “out of control” young women staggering through a raucous night out in Magaluf. (Cue a blizzard of “End of the World!” headlines in what should henceforth be known as the Daily Gilead.) While drunk men can attract criticism, women routinely attract far more. Female intoxication is often hyper-sexualised: the inebriated woman isn’t allowed to be merely drunk – she has to be a “drunken slut”.
In 2018, it’s bizarre that drunk women continue to be deemed more noteworthy than equally drunk men. Look at the occasional antics of British sportsmen – they attract a degree of disapproval, but their behaviour is just as likely to be excused and minimised. It’s surreal, though, to imagine drunken, boorish conduct from British sportswomen justified as “girls being girls”, “letting their hair down” or “letting off steam”. The clue with some of the furore about “out of control” women could be right there – society fears women that it has failed to control. Not that getting sloshed is equivalent to female freedom fighting – anyone for equal inebriation rights? – but this underlying discrimination is at least worth noting. In 2018, it’s bizarre that drunk women continue to be deemed more noteworthy than equally drunk men. Look at the occasional antics of British sportsmen – they attract a degree of disapproval, but their behaviour is just as likely to be excused and minimised. It’s surreal, though, to imagine drunken, boorish conduct from British sportswomen justified as “girls being girls”, “letting their hair down” or “letting off steam”.
At this stage of the equality game, why are there quasi-Victorian levels of denunciation cum distaste for “fallen women” inebriates, in a way that there simply isn’t for men. If somebody’s drunkenness alarms or disgusts you, then that’s one thing. However, if it particularly grates that the drunk is female, then that’s sexism right there. The clue with some of the furore about “out of control” women could be right there – society fears women that it has failed to control. Not that getting sloshed is equivalent to female freedom fighting – anyone for equal inebriation rights? – but this underlying discrimination is at least worth noting.
Why do women who enjoy a drink provoke such anger? At this stage of the equality game, why are there quasi-Victorian levels of denunciation cum distaste for “fallen women” inebriates, in a way that there simply aren’t for men. If somebody’s drunkenness alarms or disgusts you, then that’s one thing. However, if it particularly grates that the drunk is female, then that’s sexism.
Why does the idea of drunk women continue to annoy and disgust certain people, far more than the idea of drunk men? An international study on alcohol consumption published in the Lancet had some interesting findings, including that, contrary to popular belief/government guidelines, there is no “safe” drinking level.
Take that, smug, deluded fine-wine sippers, who seem to think that expensive plonk is some kind of liver-enriching vitamin. It also reported that British women are unique in drinking as much as their male counterparts, with some older women (particularly the better educated) hanging on to “ladette” drinking habits. All of which should get the moral majority up in arms.
While I’m Madame Near-Sobriety these days (I just couldn’t take the bloodcurdling, middle-aged hangovers), all my concerns about overconsumption revolve around safety, both in the drunken moment and long term. So I’ll worry about intoxicated women falling prey to predators or increasing their risk of breast cancer, but there’s no moral element. And purely on a physiological basis, it’s unwise for women to drink as much as men.
Indeed, it amazes me that there continues to be a censure reserved for female drunks which rarely, if ever, extends to men. This condemnation ranges in intensity from the “wine o’clock” mums dragging the cork out of the chablis early (to a ripple of tutting) all the way to “out of control” young women staggering through a raucous night out in Magaluf. (Cue a blizzard of “End of the World!” headlines in what should henceforth be known as the Daily Gilead.) While drunk men can attract criticism, women routinely attract far more. Female intoxication is often hyper-sexualised: the inebriated woman isn’t allowed to be merely drunk – she has to be a “drunken slut”. In 2018, it’s bizarre that drunk women continue to be deemed more noteworthy than equally drunk men. Look at the occasional antics of British sportsmen – they attract a degree of disapproval, but their behaviour is just as likely to be excused and minimised. It’s surreal, though, to imagine drunken, boorish conduct from British sportswomen justified as “girls being girls”, “letting their hair down” or “letting off steam”.
The clue with some of the furore about “out of control” women could be right there – society fears women whom it has failed to control. Not that getting sloshed is equivalent to female freedom fighting – anyone for equal inebriation rights? – but this underlying discrimination is at least worth noting. At this stage of the equality game, why are there quasi-Victorian levels of denunciation cum distaste for “fallen women” inebriates, in a way that there simply aren’t for men. If somebody’s drunkenness alarms or disgusts you, then that’s one thing. However, if it particularly grates that the drunk is female, then that’s sexism.
Corbyn leader of a prejudice-free party? Now that’s ironicCorbyn leader of a prejudice-free party? Now that’s ironic
In 1990, Norman Tebbit delivered his “cricket test”, saying that Asian or black Britons who didn’t support England were insufficiently integrated. Now, this idea – of people not being “properly” British – comes courtesy of Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn.In 1990, Norman Tebbit delivered his “cricket test”, saying that Asian or black Britons who didn’t support England were insufficiently integrated. Now, this idea – of people not being “properly” British – comes courtesy of Labour party leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
At a 2013 pro-Palestine event, Corbyn referred to another speech, observing that it was “dutifully recorded by the thankfully silent Zionists in the audience” (“thankfully silent”, eh? Nice). Corbyn deduced that these Zionists, by which he meant English or British Jews, didn’t want to study history and, “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either”.At a 2013 pro-Palestine event, Corbyn referred to another speech, observing that it was “dutifully recorded by the thankfully silent Zionists in the audience” (“thankfully silent”, eh? Nice). Corbyn deduced that these Zionists, by which he meant English or British Jews, didn’t want to study history and, “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives, they don’t understand English irony either”.
So, first, the cricket test, now the history/irony exam. Any Corbyn apologists still there: please explain how these weren’t directly expressed, unprovoked racist sentiments? Not violently done, I’ll give you, no shit through letterboxes. (Though the words hit home.) This is how it works in more mannerly circles: a nod to how a group of people retain an essential “otherness” and fail at being fully British. It was vile enough from Tebbit, but from Corbyn, the self-avowed anti-racist leading a traditionally anti-racist party, it’s as grotesque as it’s blatant. Sometimes, there’s nowhere left to hide.So, first, the cricket test, now the history/irony exam. Any Corbyn apologists still there: please explain how these weren’t directly expressed, unprovoked racist sentiments? Not violently done, I’ll give you, no shit through letterboxes. (Though the words hit home.) This is how it works in more mannerly circles: a nod to how a group of people retain an essential “otherness” and fail at being fully British. It was vile enough from Tebbit, but from Corbyn, the self-avowed anti-racist leading a traditionally anti-racist party, it’s as grotesque as it’s blatant. Sometimes, there’s nowhere left to hide.
AlcoholAlcohol
OpinionOpinion
commentcomment
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content