Edwina Currie’s cleavage tweet was classic fake feminism
|
Version 0 of 1. Well done to Edwina Currie for hijacking the budget coverage by drawing attention to another woman’s breasts. Responding to a tweet about home secretary Theresa May’s outfit (considered by some to be too revealing), Currie tweeted: “Great cleavage though”. More proof, in case it were needed, that “Go girl!” culture is increasingly becoming the last reserve of the fake-feminist scoundrel. I’m not sure Currie would self-identify as a feminist, but her “great cleavage” statement remains a classic “Go girl!” move. This is when attention is drawn to a woman’s body or sexuality by another female, under the guise of bawdy “all girls together” camaraderie. In truth, the whole thing is phony and ruinous. Usually the ambience aimed for is that of a nightclub loo in the early hours (application of lippy, talking about boys, sharing of hairspray). The rationale is that it’s fine, because it’s all about women, no men involved. Which works to a point – what’s wrong with a little gender privacy where one can talk freely, using female-only shorthand? Women should be able to have frank uncensored conversations with one another, cover topics that men can’t, give one another compliments in as faux-lewd a way as they like. It’s all about female solidarity, innit? Absolutely, except when “Go girl!” stops being positive and helpful, and starts becoming a cover for a particular brand of woman-on-woman sexism. There’s a lot of it about. Women showering one another with crude “compliments”. “Great rack”, “Nice tits”, “Banging arse”, and the rest. It’s easily done; I’ve done it myself. I know that it can be well-intentioned, sweet and funny. I also understand that it originated from a good place – an ironic appropriation of what women were routinely putting up with from men. That it can also be about celebrating different female body shapes. Certainly I don’t think that women should wait passively for compliments from men, as though they’re the only kind that matter. Men rarely compliment one another, which is pathetic and tragic. And at best, there’s a beauty and ease to females celebrating one another that could only be dreamt of by men. Yet, how depressing that May, the home secretary, was reduced to a “great cleavage” by another woman, a former politico, on budget day. What’s the male equivalent – Lord Heseltine “supportively” tweeting that George Osborne was having a “great penis day”? (“Wear even tighter trousers, George!”). Why can’t a woman just say to another woman that she looks good? Why express yourself in this weird sexualised borderline-offensive manner? All too often topped by a cloying cod-feminist disingenuousness – a suggestion that, like Currie, one is merely being ironic, chatting among the gals. Maybe once this approach was fresh, a welcome riposte to outdated social mores, but increasingly it looks tired and lame. When a man says “Nice arse”, at least there’s a fair chance he means it. “Go girl” is just more relentless sexist focus on female body parts – but this time women are doing it to other women. It’s the language of porn as sieved through an underpowered confused feminist consciousness. A bluffer’s guide to feminism for women who can’t be bothered to do it properly (“I couldn’t give a damn about equal pay, but I’m a feminist because I just admired the perkiness of another woman’s nipples, and yelled in her face that she was HOT!”). Once again the conversation begins and ends with the female form – to the point where a political heavyweight is reduced to a bosom – and this is presented as pro-women. What codswallop. The only correct “Go girl!” response from May would have been to reject all attempts to make her body, or how she dressed it, an issue. Hey Elton, you’re not the Gay King Some of you may be aware of the row between Elton John and gay Italian fashion designers, Dolce & Gabbana – the former calling for a boycott, and sparking a social media campaign, after Domenico Dolce’s denunciation of IVF and “chemical children, synthetic babies”. It’s a disgrace to insult innocent children in this way. Moreover, how stupid is Dolce? One presumes, with some confidence, that Dolce & Gabbana clothes are much admired by gay people. Therefore it’s a bit rash to criticise IVF, and the children it produces – since, as is the case with John and his husband, David Furnish, this is how many gay couples manage to have families. On the other hand, who anointed John “the Gay King” – he who must be obeyed and feared? In the past, I’ve been highly amused by his stance as a one-man rehab clinic for any fellow celebrity who he and Furnish feel has gone off the rails. I’ve watched with glee their attempts to rescue the rebellious likes of George Michael and Robbie Williams “from themselves”! Come to think of it, it was only when John started having children that he stopped trying to force his hard-won sobriety on others. Now here he is, telling Dolce what he can and cannot say. I agree with John – I just don’t agree with his overheated reaction to being disagreed with. Doesn’t this need to calm down? Dolce came out with some sad dated voodoo tripe that nobody sane could take seriously for a moment. So what? What happened to having differences of opinion, even a gobby row? I’m sure we’d all survive. Certainly there seems no need to take it further, with social media campaigns or boycotts. Sometimes even Elton John has to be reminded that it’s not all about him. America, take our royals. We’ll have the Obamas Barack Obama was overheard telling Prince Charles, at a White House photo op, that the American public was fond of the British royals and preferred them to US politicians. To which the only sane response is: “Yeah? You have them and pay for them, then – they can be rather annoying and don’t come cheap.” Royal families tend to look so much lovelier from afar, don’t they? Sometimes, foreigners get all gooey-eyed about Kate Middleton to me and I have to tell them that, genuinely no offence to the woman, but I couldn’t care less about her and nor could a lot of Britons. Outsiders seem to feel that British people either worship the royals, or seethe with hatred for them, when the reality seems to range from mild affection to outright indifference, morphing into resigned horror when royal saturation looks imminent, as with That Bloody Wedding. Perhaps it’s understandable that Americans prefer benign-looking royals from another country to their own politicians. As would we. Perhaps we could start a time-share with the Americans – they are allowed to spend time with the royals and we get to see more of those nice Obamas. |