On misogyny and female columnists
Nick Cohen's intervention is welcome but let's not kid ourselves that he "nailed" it first.
By Ellie Mae O'Hagan Published 08 December 2011 14:03
Yesterday, Nick Cohen wrote a piece criticising the Telegraph's Daniel Knowles.
Cohen accused Knowles of misogyny in a piece he'd written about Laurie Penny, and then neatly segued into an overarching condemnation of the way female columnists are treated in comparison to their male counterparts.
Nick Cohen was right when he accused journalists of finding "a special thrill in attacking women who write forcefully about politics", but I don't agree that Daniel Knowles was particularly misogynistic. No matter though; because this piece isn't about either of them. This piece is about us.
Almost as soon as the piece was published, "Nick Cohen" started trending on Twitter. Clicking on the topic revealed scores of men and women sharing and praising his article; congratulating him for "nailing" the subject.
Did he really? Funny; because I seem to remember contributing to a piece on the New Statesman a few weeks ago on this very subject. I remember Laurie Penny herself doing a better job of "nailing" it with her own piece a few days later. And, if I'm not mistaken, the Guardian asked four women to join a panel discussion about online misogyny that very same week.
Maybe I imagined all that: maybe it didn't happen. After all, it didn't trend on Twitter when women pointed it out; and if I remember rightly, a great deal of respondents told us to stop being so weak. Brendan O'Neill -- God love him -- even dedicated an entire column to it.
How strange, then, that Cohen's piece should be the subject of such adulation. How unfathomable it is that his opinion should be lauded more than those for whom misogyny is a lived experience. It seems, as one Twitter user put it to me, that when "feminist women call sexism they are portrayed as killjoys; when feminist men do it, they are portrayed as white knights riding to the aid of defenceless women."
The thing about living in a structurally sexist society -- yes, a patriarchy if you're not afraid of that old hoary term -- is that sometimes sexism happens without anyone even registering. It's not all Zoo magazine and "calm down dear" -- in fact it rarely is. Most of the time, it's just arduous, exhausting daily life. Most of the time it's men getting congratulated for saying the same things women have written about, debated, and received abuse for.
In 2009, an activist blogger called Chris Crass wrote about his experience of being told he was guilty of sexism. His female friend told him:
You cut me off when I'm talking. You pay more attention to what men say. The other day when I was sitting at the coffee shop with you and Mike, it was like the two of you were having a conversation and I was just there to watch. I tried to jump in and say something, but you both just looked at me and then went back to your conversation.
Crass went on to describe sexism in the activist group he was part of. He relays the moment where the women of the group try to explain the sexism they've experienced, and says "the discussion quickly turned into women defending themselves, defending their understandings of their own experiences".'
His account is ratified by reams of sociological research. In 1998, sociologist Senta Trömel-Plötz wrote, "Men, the speakers of the dominant style, have more rights and privileges. They exhibit their privileges and produce them in every conversational situation."
Don't get me wrong: there are feminist reasons to praise Nick Cohen's article. After all, we'll never smash the patriarchy until men start brandishing metaphorical hammers as well. But the congratulations he received weren't simply a result of him dipping his toe in the feminist water. It was relief: because now a man has condemned misogyny online, we women can be confident it's actually real.
With all due respect to Nick Cohen, I don't need him to tell me sexism is a problem. The twentysomething years I have inhabited this planet have taught me that. But I'm glad he threw his hat in the ring, because what he said was important. It's also, unintentionally, a reminder of how far feminism has to go.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















25 comments
@iris
And what would you say to @Henry's point about how no one goes around claiming that homelessness, suicide, and other statistics with a heavy male bias are 'gender issues'?
Or is it the old "if it happens to a women, it's a feminist issue, if it happens to men, it's just how things are"?
I read the article. Thought it was a load of tosh. Melanie phillips gets attacked not for being female but for her extremist views and the way she writes them, like a half mad rabid dog. I read her stuff occasionally and can't help thinking how much more seriously people would take her if she wasn't so vitriolic and aggressive. As for Laurie penny, i think she gets attacked because she so often writes adolescent utter drivel that would not be out of place in a student mag.It's as if she hasn't grown up. I don't think any of it has to do with them being female. They just attract a lot of attention due to the nonsense they write.
Henry said: "I look at a lot of feminist writing." Interesting turn of phrase. He could have said "I read a lot of feminist writing."... it certainly would have been more obvious - to both most writers and readers... but I'll give Henry some benefit of the doubt. He seems to select his words carefully elsewhere... perhaps this also was not an accident. He "looks at" feminist writing... hmm... the image that comes to mind is of something one wants to keep a distance from this thing he is viewing - an arms length brief appraisal of selected quotes he was lead to by other writers ensured to maintain one's pre-existing distaste for the genre. If one were really *reading* a lot of feminist writing, and with that meaning that they seriously tried to approach it full-on and honestly, presumably they would simply say: "I read a lot of feminist writing". Sometimes your choice of words can tell volumes about your underlying attitudes.
...besides, he comes to a sweeping conclusion on the feminist movement (as if he hadn't already done that) based on whatever subset of the writings he has actually read. Even if he'd read whole books by well-known feminists... considering the varied views, personalities and methodologies of different feminist writers, it seems like flawed logic to come to such a conclusion.
Joe H said: "Funny that writing a good article about something that's ALREADY BEEN NAILED doesn't generate the same response." In most universes, the 6th of December happens after both the 3rd and 4th of November. Pity... wasting those all-caps on an issue that is simply imagined.
@Roger
I was taking O'Hagan's research at face value when she said Penny's article appeared "a few days later" than Cohen's, which appeared on December 6th.
Inspector Roger strikes, well done. Now have a look at yourself and figure out why you feel the need to nitpick other people's considered arguments instead of coming up with your own
Thank you!
Having now read this article, I think it is more a means of allowing Cohen to attack critics of Melanie Philips (his ally on certain Middle Eastern matters) than a genuine defence of women writers. He could, instead of citing left wing attacks on her (likely to be based on the extremeness of her views) have cited left wing attacks on Penny, Toynbee and co. A good way of assessing the general misogyny of political writing on both sides of the ideological frontier is to consider the automatic anti feminism expressed on left wing sites, typically male dominated. Contributors tend to mock and dismiss "middle class" (or even privately educated - gasp!) women who concern themselves with a cause so uninteresting to hard working, heroic males while also daring to express views on really important topics, which should be left to the aforesaid hard working, heroic males.
So your problem with the Cohen thing is basically "hey don't say nice things about him he's a man, say them about women who've said the same thing instead"?
Joe H
"So your problem with the Cohen thing is basically "hey don't say nice things about him he's a man, say them about women who've said the same thing instead"?"
No.
Now try reading it again.
Concentrate this time
@Joe H
Actually, the article did *not* say that Penny's article appeared "a few days later" than Cohen's. What the "a few days later" phrase refers to is not specified in that sentence - and can only be deduced from the previous sentence... where the Statesman article, and *not* Cohen's article, is noted. You may consider this sort of thing to be nitpicking - but you brought it up and used it as a basis for attack on the author... so it irritated me. I like factual claims to be factual. It bothers the logician in me. Does this attention to "nits" in "considered arguments" bother you? Probably - but that wasn't the point.
What are my views? Well... the author's argument is persuasive (though my knowledge is limited to the three articles referenced... and many similar anecdotal cases I've run across). Some of the counter points are reasonable - such as yours stating your opinion that Cohen is a superior writer (I don't have an opinion on that after only one article each) but opinions are opinions and unsupported do not prove any point... and certainly are weak soup if one is trying to deny the existence of misogyny as a culture-wide phenomena (which *is* *well* supported elsewhere). So - you see, I don't have much else to say on the topic at the moment. Too bad, eh?
Yes. Not got much to say in fact because i'm too busy having dull conversations with other men.. however.. whenever i've spoken/commented/thrown my tuppenceworth at people on this subject/general area i usually get accused of acting the white knight by the people who start arguing with me. I try not to wander too far off the point when this happens, briefly illustrating that that's not what i'm about and not what women need either and that i comment for me, because I cliches make me grind my teeth, because i've got my hands pretty much full un-arresting my own development and because sometimes people (men/women) just really piss me off. Lol. The other thing that comes up is.. if i'm 'sticking up for' a woman, i MUST fancy her. So.. there you go.. i must fancy all women. All of them. All of YOU! Try not to make eye contact with me if you see me on the 86 bus and you're getting hassled by a lecherous male.. I may start spontaneously defending you. Actually my friend Rob reckons i fall in love on the bus on a daily basis, and i did meet someone i went out with by doing this once. erk.
We all know the reason for this. Because when a woman speaks out against misogyny, she's being emotional and overreacting and is quickly ignored. When a man does it, well, that must mean it holds some weight.
@Joe H,
Correction... I did kind of slam you... I think you open yourself up to that when using all-caps on a fallacious argument. If one is going to "yell" (all-cap) at someone else, they'd better darn well know what they are talking about...
deary me. Reason why Cohen's piece garnered alot of attention on Twitter is that hes quite a bit more famous than either Penny or O'Hagen. You would think that people who are interested in this area would be happy to get as much interest and genuine discussion going. Instead the fact that Cohen is a man is then used to bash him. As for "now a man has condemned misogyny online, we women can be confident it's actually real" is patronising in the extreme most women dont need Cohen, O'Hagen or Penny to tell them this, they log on and see it.
All this kind of shows precisely why Brian (nice patronising of the workingclass/poor btw there Brian) is so wrong with left sceptisism about some "middle class feminists". This article isnt about feminism as much as anger that Cohen recieved more attention than O'Hagen. Its a middle class media envy dressed up as feminism. How this helps anyone Ive no idea.
Reasons other than sexism that your piece gets less attention. These may not apply but worth considering:
1) More people read the other publication
2) The writer is a 'big dog in da house' with a big following.
3) The other piece was more engaging.
@Dave Perry
Sorry I was confused by all da big wurds
I SEE THE LIGHT NOW
Srsly tho... let me share a tweet from a friend of mine on this article:
"Reasons other than sexism that a bloke writer gets more attention: he writes for a paper more people read. He's a better writer than you."
Bloody good stuff actually.
"he writes for a paper more people read."
So that's why The Independent which Penny Laure's piece has a higher circulation than The Spectator which published Cohen's article.
As for the second reason, then I repeat Dave Perry's words, now go back and read it again, or run along back to your Dan Dare.
Two things:
a) Patriarchy is not just 'hoary' and old as a concept it is also wrong. Men do not have systematic power over women. They *certainly* don't have it over me.
b)Maybe 'reams' of research has been done about men's sexism - but that could have something to do with how gender studies is dominated by feminism. As you know Tom Martin is suing the LSE for discriminating against men in its gender studies degrees. So should we trust the research? I don't think so.
QRG
@mcquade
Was that aimed at me? OK.
1) You're right, The Independent does have a higher circulation than The Spectator. But the first point O'Hagan makes is that "I seem to remember contributing to a piece in the New Statesman a few weeks ago on this very subject" - note: the New Statesman. Which has a much lower circulation than The Spectator. She goes on to say that Penny nailed it too, in The Independent, but... a few days later. Funny that writing a good article about something that's ALREADY BEEN NAILED doesn't generate the same response. Maybe you should re-read all 3 pieces
2) When I (and others) say that Cohen is a better writer than O'Hagan, it's a matter of opinion. If you think O'Hagan is a better writer, I disagree - but fair play to you. Although I would point out that Cohen's greater popularity suggests most would agree with me
3) Your suggestion that I "run along back to [my] Dan Dare" is pretty pathetic, and suggests a sneering intellectual snobbery presumably based on the assumption that if I disagree with you I must not understand the issues involved. I repeat, a pretty pathetic way to try and dismiss opinions that don't match yours. It's also probably not a coincidence that you chose 'Dan Dare', an old-school macho character aimed at young boys - are you trying to imply that because I don't think the popularity of Cohen's article is due to rampant sexism I MYSELF must therefore be a rampant (and juvenile) sexist?
All I can say, 'mcquade', is...
...welcome to modern gender studies. You'll fit right in.
"I don't need him to tell me sexism is a problem",
Looks like 70s "no man can understand or talk about what it's like to be a woman" feminism
The comment
"we women can be confident it's actually real"
is telling. Why didn't you think it was real before? Did you at some level rightly suspect you were making it all up? One man saying it makes it true? d'oh
Not a pleasant fantasy world to live in. Instead why don't you look at the actual wages stats, the university admissions, the rest of education, the suicide stats, the homeless, the unemployed etcetcetc
If any one of these applied to women, you'd be going on about "homelessness is a feminist issue", and explain how the 'patriarchy' must be responsible, with inadequate evidence.
I look at a lot of feminist writing. The standard of argument is pretty poor. The whole enterprise comes across as dishonest and political
@quiet riot girl
Have you read any feminist literature? Also basing whether patriarchy exists or not on your own individual experience is ridiculous. Think about sexual violence that disproportionately affects women more than men, the gender pay gap and institutionalised sexism. You are horribly ignorant.
@quiet riot girl
Furthermore every government in the world is male dominated. Men *literally* rule the world.
Go and read some feminist literature.
What a lot of sour comments! Feminism is political? Oh dear! Those feminists - they hate men, don't they?
What makes me sad is that 30 years ago we were pointing out the same things - and we were going to fix them, weren't we?