Bernadine Evaristo

More Genderwang! from Evaristo on A Point of View on Radio 4:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000lh74

It starts well with her stating that gender and sex are distinct but then she gets drawn into the same dead ends that appeal to many:

There are 3 "biological sexes": male, female, and intersex.
NATALT, so we must ignore the Yanivs that the nasty press fixate upon.
The nasty press are presenting this in the same way as "all gays are paedos" and "all blacks are muggers".
We must have a lovely chat rather than have a row. (Paraphrase: women standing up for their rights just isn't kind.)

But then she throws in the grenade of "gender isn't intrinsic". It's very easy to get cancelled with loose talk like that.

My overall impression is that she thinks very very highly of her own intelligence and wisdom. It might be better for her to rely less on her effortless mastery of the subject and actually get to understand more of what she's pointificating on.

Shirley was great. She was also the real hero I thought - the one who changed lives.

I have to say that when i read the review of GWO after it had won the Booker, i got the impression from the (male) reviewers that she had really only won because she was black, which says a huge amount... Then I read it for book group and thought it was superb: I normally don't bother with the Booker prize as I have been disappointed so many times, but I thought it was exceptional.

It took me a while to get into the odd layout, and found it exhausting at first but i got into it and grew to like it. I also thought Shirley the 'boring' teacher was an excellent character she was believable and not a cliché: she felt like she was a real person, warts and all. All the characters felt like they were real people; it wasn't just joining the dots.

I haven't read any of her recent stuff, but would recommend Blonde Roots.

if gender is a social construct anyone can identify as that gender.

This is such a profound mistake that so many feminists make. It must be a trick of language that makes so many women (including some 'gc' feminists) believe something so demonstrably false.

Gender means 'sex roles'. It is socially constructed upon the material reality of sex. It is not separable from sex. Superficial markers of femininity are not the same thing as sex roles, and men do not experience sexism when they adorn themselves with said markers.

This is obvious, glaringly so. It is proven, in many, many contexts all over the world. From the Hijra of Pakistan who have much more freedom and autonomy than Pakistani women and girls, to Lily Madigan getting away with behaviour that would be tolerated in no Labour woman, to underachieving Travis Alabanza being featured alongside black women of actual achievement in Evaristo's 'womxn' issue of the Sunday Times. None of these males are 'treated like women', because no male can be; none of them have ever been subordinated by sexism, though they may of course have suffered as males. The gender 'woman' cannot be transferred to men via lipstick, or hormones, or pronouns, or surgery.

Again, this is obvious, this is proven, this is demonstrable. Why do so many women continue to believe the opposite, in contradiction of the evidence? Is it wishful thinking? Effeminate men are not 'like women', they are not treated like women, they have no special insight into the female experience, and their behaviour in general indicates that they don't empathise with women, at least, no more than other men do.

I am a woman, female, and not remotely feminine.

But I bet you have experienced sexism nonetheless. I bet you are still 'treated like a woman'. Sex-role non-conforming women often suffer the worst sexism (witness the horrific violence inflicted on butch lesbians in parts of the world, and their near-total invisibility in popular culture). The gender 'man' cannot be transferred to women who defy sex roles.

'Gender' (weasel word) is a phenomenon that is inextricable from sex; it is not an independent entity that can be shifted between the sexes according to how femininely or masculinely someone presents. As long as a person's sex is discernible to others, he or she will be treated as their actual sex.

They say:

The word 'Womxn’ has been used as an inclusive word that recognises non-binary people and trans women. It is consistent with the name of the company, Black Womxn in Theatre

So in other words it is yet another organisation that could have provided support and interaction between women, but has chosen to disregard women's rights and just insert them into random grouping of people who can claim to be non binary or men who say they are women.

Way to go.

That's true respect for Black Women - not.

InTheWings - you dont know that the price the 200 Black Women had to pay was to agree to be womxn.

This is a publicity stunt. If in a year it has helped the women who attended to achieve what they want (not the Globe PR department) then fine.

It is grotesque to shoehorn into an event about empowering / acknowledging Black women the view of a tiny minority (if you remember an exhibition last year got laughed out of existence) all you are doing is recreating the same patronising ownership of those women's opportunities.

Hardly anyone used that word. It is the sole preserve of a tiny group within the arts world.

The people who are imposing their believes on the women taking part are the ones who are being disrespectful.

Another example of how the white yardstick is the one members of the BAME community are meant to aspire to.

I suppose how I feel about it is that she isn’t shouting anyone down on Twitter or calling people TERFs. She’s written a novel, which is what she does. And I like to read widely, including novels by people who’s politics I don’t agree with. I’m not going to boycott her because her novels don’t exactly reflect what I think.

This is how I feel too. I've only ever heard her express her views in respectful language. She's not crying "burn the witch". If she were, I wouldn't read her work. I think it's abundantly clear from GWO that she at least understands the other viewpoint, even if she doesn't agree.

MorrisZapp I am so excited to read the new Emma Donoghue. (Though she's a lesbian who lives in Canada so she is almost certainly woke) 😒

No I’d criticise anyone for using womxn. In any circs.

Here's the tweet by Shakespeare's Globe Black womxn working in theatre where you can see the gender critical replies

Thanks for finding that. The Twitter stuff I read was on the group’s own account and I can’t see earlier than July this year, for some reason.

But oh wow. So 200 black women get together to make an image, and the majority of the response is not to acknowledge and support them in their struggle, achievements and celebration as black women in a resoundingly white industry but to criticise their choice, in this particular circumstance, to use womxn.

Isn’t it a bit ‘all lives matter’, all that exasperation? In that particular circumstance?

I guess my simple minded thinking is: I have a choice between reading a white author writing about race or a black author writing about race. It's a bit like the choice between a male author writing about feminism versus a female author writing about feminism. I'm going to go for the woman's account first. So I'm going to read Reni Eddo-Lodge first too.

@DianasLasso
Was thinking of going for Reni Eddo-Lodge: Why I'm no longer talking to white people about race. You've reminded me that I must download it.

(There just feels like something a bit off about reading a book by a white person about white people's reaction to race politics... sort of missing out on listening to the right people on this issue, I feel.)

Huh??

You can see the QT section about the statues here:

www.facebook.com/watch/?v=264109854804173

Give it a few years and the DiAngelo book will have been declared as problematic and everyone lauding it now will have denounced it in very strong terms.

(There just feels like something a bit off about reading a book by a white person about white people's reaction to race politics... sort of missing out on listening to the right people on this issue, I feel.)

OP by the way what did she say about the Bristol statues ? I didn’t see qt but that was what impressed you so I’d be interested to know what her take was.

I think nuff that if you're going to make quips about posters not reading the book, it might be worth taking your own advice and reading the whole thread. I assume you haven't because, had you done so you would have noticed that there's a wide spread of opinions, although it may not suit your narrative to acknowledge them.

I think Evaristo's a lot more readable than Winterson, whose books - aside from 'Oranges' and 'Why be Happy' I find largely incomprehensible, although she wears some great shoes and I can forgive her a lot for that.

I'd be interested to know whether you're going to read White Fragility DianasLasso.

I saved time by watching a 2 hour youtube presentation by DiAngelo and decided I'd learned enough not to have to bother.

Why would there be a book burning? Don't be absurd.

I read lots of authors whose political views I don't agree with. There are lots of authors (some of whom I am reliably informed are giants in their field) whose work just doesn't float my boat so I don't bother.

I'm the person who had a look at the first chapter - because I hadn't heard of her before, and thought I would find out more. The first chapter didn't do it for me because I found it too polemical and didactic, but someone else on here mentioned that part of the point of the book was to feature many different voices, so it may be that while I didn't like the bit I read, the book may be a grower. Or not. Haven't decided whether to get it or not yet.

I certainly wouldn't not read a book because of the politics of the author or because one of the characters wasn't like me. I've read religious allegory (even though I'm an agnostic), libertarian author's sci-fi (even though I'm left-of centre), the works of dyed-in-the-wool misogynists (even though I'm a woman and a feminist). I've read books where the central character is a soldier, or a nun, or a serial killer, or a housewife... Why would I be put off by a trans character?

But - here's the thing. I read for pleasure, not out of a sense of duty (either literary, or cultural, or political, or whatever). If I don't like the beginning of a book, I don't bother to finish it. Life's too short. Maybe I miss out on some gems that way, but I also miss out on many hours of dutiful tedium when I could be doing something I actually enjoy doing.

nuff was that aimed at DonkeySkin, as they said the mine you quoted? Not sure they were disagreeing with you?

Oooh, is there going to be a book burning? How exciting.
Why do people think Evaristo is ‘parroting a woke line?’
She’s an award-winning writer and a feminist - I’m sure she’s capable of holding her own opinions. You may not agree with her on something. Why does someone having a different opinion from you make you think that person is stupid or that she’s just claiming to believe something for ‘woke points’?
I don’t get it.
I’ve read Girl, Woman, Other (not just part of the first chapter or glanced at the first page like some on here). I really enjoyed it and particularly loved the character Dominique.
By the way, Jeanette Winterson’s Frankisstein also has trans characters in it, including a transwoman. She’s a feminist isn’t she, or does that get her on some kind of boycott list too?

Men can't be 'feminine gendered people'. No matter how much lipstick they wear, no matter what pronouns they adopt. The 'feminine gender' applies only to women

I disagree.

I do not think men can be women, I do not think men can be female. But if gender is a social construct anyone can identify as that gender. But not as that sex.
Feminine: a social construct of ‘like a woman’
Female; a biological fact, IS a woman.

I am a woman, female, and not remotely feminine. Feminine and Masculine are each a spectrum. Some people of both sexes are more, or less, feminine / masculine.

Sex is binary, you are male or female.

I really tried hard with GWO, but ultimately I felt it lacked shape with just all the individual stories. The lack of punctuation didn't bother me in that I could understand it OK, but this trend does make me roll my eyes a bit!

Ultimately, I felt GWO was a bit of a 'tick box' exercise, covering every possible variation of the gender oppressed, with the over-arching racial issues too.
I felt it was written to win prizes, in the same way I felt Elif Shafak's '10 minutes etc' book was.

I've read the books of quite a few black authors, but I didn't rate this one.

bishop I rolled my eyes at first over the non-punctuation, but I went with it and managed to get into the rhythm, if that makes sense. I'm not sure it entirely worked but I didn't find it hard to read and I don't believe it was done purely for show.

I didn't see the Times piece but I do think there's more to Evaristo than woke polemic, although she may tread a fine line at times.