I am going to preface this with a sort of health warning. I am thick-skinned. I spend my days working with and against litigation lawyers. They love to argue, for the hell of it. And if I couldn't cope with that I'd be a gibbering wreck. So I am perhaps desensitised to argument. And I have a dry sense of humour, to the point that if I express outrage or massive horror about something etc it is often not how I really feel; it's probably sarcasm or a wind-up/trolling exercise. So please don't think I was upset by any of this. Nor, probably, will I be upset by your comments on it. I genuinely don't know the answer to the point I am making, and welcome clarification - as a straight white middle-class middle-aged man, I've not got much experience of discrimination to relate back to.
Anyway, I shared this cartoon, from the Spectator and reproduced here with full acknowledgement and for the purposes of criticism.
And after a couple of likes, I got a comment - "I bet a man drew that". And so I looked again. There is a clear inference that could be drawn that women are shallow gossipy creatures whilst men are intellectuals. The first time, I did not see it this way. But an allusion to the issue made it very plain to me.
It's hard in hindsight to recreate a thought process. Was I blind to the sexism? Was I completely focused on the wordplay and didn't see the sexes of the people? If the latter, should I have?
I've asked around - I've shown the cartoon to twenty people or so. Simply saying "what do you think of this?"
- Five (split three men and two women) did not get it. They are no longer friends. (Joke.)
- Eight (50/50 split) thought it funny
- Three said they understood it but did not find it funny. All men. Two of whom have very slapstick senses of humour - you know the type - thinks Milton Jones is rubbish. None of these people 'get' the titles of my blogs either*
- Four - (three women ) saw it as sexist, although two of the women also said without prompting that they thought it was accurate (I don't know what to make of this!)
Not much of a sample, and no clear finding. Some people were (very mildly) offended by it. At The Spectator, not at me. Is that enough that it shouldn't be published? Do I need to consider the sexist (and also presumably racist, homophobic etc) potential which could be in any joke before I make it?
My conclusion - modern life is complicated.
And in waded Joey Barton. His comment - paraphrased - on looking at the recent elections, is that it was like four ugly girls at a party and selecting UKIP was like selecting the least ugly one. And engage Twitterstorm level 3.
Barton has form. He has made derogatory comments in the past about other footballers and their sexuality. He has been violent. He has had, as they say, issues. He is though (it is apparent from QT) not stupid. But he's not, I suspect, formally educated - he was just born bright, and once he realised there was more to life than kicking a football, has done something to educate himself, through reading etc. (This is potentially a massive generalisation - but indulge me.)
How, dear Reader, would you cope on Question Time? I would be utterly terrified. Most of us, when put on the spot, tend one of two ways. We shut up - not good in a panellist - or we babble. And that is what Barton did, I think. I am sure that if he had been given time, he would have not made the analogy. (He has apologised and seems genuinely upset about it.) He could have found another example. Or simply stuck with what he had said before.
But now we know that, even if he had self-censored, that this is how his mind works. Is he innately sexist? Given my posting of that cartoon, am I - with me just lacking the pressure and/or opportunity to be openly so?
There is a difference of course. I am guessing that if you polled people, a very high percentage would see Barton's comments as sexist. It is obvious. Res ipsa loquitor**. So I think that's my line. Some things are so obviously offensive that they should not be said. But the things that divide opinion, or offend a small minority are just life being difficult. People have the right to expect me, Joey and everyone else to remove the first, but you just have to accept the second is going to happen. If you are the only person in the world offended by x, then unless x is personal and about you, it probably says more about you than the world.
Should Barton be ostracised and pilloried? No, of course he shouldn't. QT picks non-political panellists because it wants more than the 'on message' answers. It should be more interesting. More 'real', whatever that means. It was a throwaway comment and I suspect he will learn from it. We shall see, because I am sure, following that, he will get plenty more TV chat opportunities.
* not 'get' them individually - 'get' the fact that they are usually slightly twisted references to pop tunes. You all got that, right?
** the thing speaks for itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment