Kate Clanchy - poet - is 'cancelled' by her publisher

Your theoretical ponderings about the "male gaze" etc, etc

...um, this is FWR, @KimikosNightmare, I think we're allowed to talk about the male gaze. If you think that's irrelevant waffle, maybe this isn't the forum for you?

The wording however has been pulled so possibly you should address your lecture to Clanchy and her new publisher.

Clearly with the benefit of hindsight she and they can't have thought it was a kind or necessary thing to say.

@SantaClawsServiette Why are you bringing up "TRAs"? That's completely irrelevant.

More to the point: stop shitting on lesbian culture. You're terrible.

[quote Innocenta]@QueenPeony @SantaClawsServiette You're both completely wrong, sorry. 'Butch' is a uniquely, fundamentally lesbian identity. That doesn't mean the word isn't used metaphorically (as KC is using it!) outside that context. The closest parallel is something like 'twink'. The unique meaning of the word is a certain subtype of gay man. But it is used metaphorically outside that; I have heard/seen straight men described as twinks in an adjectival, metaphorical sense.

Nonetheless. It's actually both hilarious and disgusting that you both think you get to tell me (or know better than I do) what 'butch' means. @SantaClawsServiette, I remember your shitty homophobic posts elsewhere, so goodness knows why you think any lesbian is going to care about your opinion on this. @QueenPeony, you're just wrong, read some lesbian history (I know you won't!). [/quote]
If you've ever wondered where TRAs get the idea that anyone who disagrees about issues with them is transphobic, you might consider your own posts.

The word butch exists outside of that context, in fact it predates it. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Actually - never mind. I said I would step away and I really will now, if only because my posts are getting longer and more numerous and also, as has been noted, more repetitive. And because I'm prepared to bet that literally no one will say they do think Kimiko should be cancelled, and that is an excellent thing.

I love MN because it is one of the few places where robust discussion thrives, and it thrives precisely because the greatest risk we take is having our arses handed to us, which is what "being held to account" should really mean. It stings, but it doesn't destroy, and it leaves space and opportunity to think and come back better. I think we all see this, on a microcosmic level. I am in favour of enabling voices, especially well-meaning ones, that's all. We don't gain anything by silencing them.

Fuck me. Someone thinks they're Jeremy Paxman.

Fair enough. But I would really like an answer.

@BadHairDayExpert Since most participants here are women, should we take that as a slur?

Fuck me. Someone thinks they're Jeremy Paxman.

will comment only on the now bizarre suggestion that publicly stating a teenage girl has a moustache was really done with the best intentions of being a morale booster.

The section is one of the many which have been pulled from the book.

I don't know if that means that you can't comment on the context, having only got the new edition, or whether you're making a different point. But I would say that your sarcasm - "obviously it cannot possibly be a positive thing" - highlights very clearly your own prejudices against butchness and non-feminine features (plenty of women have facial hair, some because of e.g. PCOS, but apparently it must automatically be shaming). You have internalised the value judgements of the male gaze to the extent that you literally cannot imagine stating the fact without it being meant as anything but negative and judgemental. And your dismissal of the context as plainly "bizarre" only highlights your inability to imagine a different way of thinking. I think that is your problem, not Clanchy's.

But let's put that to one side for a moment. Do you think you should be cancelled?

I've got Jewish friends. The first time I met them I didn't feel the need to query them at lenghth about their Jewish heritage or publish anything in the public domain about their "Ashkenazi noses"

Why did Clanchy?

Again, addressed upthread.

Do you think you should be cancelled?

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl

If you can't grasp what I'm saying and follow a logical argument, well, you can't. Oh, come on.

And you have not pulled up anyone for pointing out these other descriptors and accused them of thinking that, for example, because they pointed out Ashkenazi nose as an inappropriate description, that means they think having an Ashkenazi nose is bad so they are anti-Semitic. Have you? Why not?

Innocenta has answered on her own behalf - but in fact I have raised that point, albeit less directly, and no one answered, except to say that it wasn't right to raise any physical characteristics at all where they weren't relevant. Now, that is a completely tenable position, but it does mean that to be consistent you should regard 'pretty' and 'freckled' and 'tall' as similar microaggressions. Do you? If you agree with Kimiko's analysis, do you accept that they are also appalling and extremely derogatory?

Or - do you in fact wince a little at the usage of 'butch' or 'brown' because you know, as we all do, that they have (often, perhaps overwhelmingly) been used in a context where they are indisputably slurs, and so you think that they have been associated with oppression for so long that it is in fact impossible to use them to mean only what they mean? That is, no one can ever use them neutrally (unless, perhaps, they explicitly say that they're neutral)? In which case yes, that is internalised prejudice at work - not making anyone a bad person, not making anyone less than well-meaning, but still prejudice - and the way we combat that is not never to say them, but absolutely to keep saying them in contexts where they are true and relevant, and to make sure no value judgement is attached. Prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia - are the establishment of a false relationship between x (true characteristic) and y (bad thing). Regarding x as the thing never to be mentioned locates the source of the harm in entirely the wrong place, and reinforces the equation.

(I do not want to get into another piece of literary criticism, but I would point out that the butch girl with the moustache is presented, in context, as part of a discussion about uniform and forced gender conformity. She is held up as an image of unselfconscious, joyous freedom, contrasted with her older sisters: to accuse Clanchy of judging her for not being "sufficiently feminine" is spectacularly missing the point. But since we are talking about the terms themselves, and not the context, this is a digression.)

The section is one of the many which have been pulled from the book.

I've got Jewish friends. The first time I met them I didn't feel the need to query them at lenghth about their Jewish heritage or publish anything in the public domain about their "Ashkenazi noses"

Why did Clanchy?

No, I said if it was relevant to do so, then do. Clanchy, from the excerpts, was scattering them all over the place. The only time she acknowledged her ignorance was the Somali incident.

The painful example being the "Ashenazi nose". Completely irrelevant- unless you're the sort of person who thinks it's really important to identify if some- one is Jewish.

Or in the context of a discussion about why different communities react differently to varied ethnic heritage, as was extensively discussed upthread. Your conclusion, as I remember it, was that it was unforgiveable whether or not said discussion was happening. If I have misremembered, and in fact you are all up for the depiction of relevant detail as long as it is within explicit discussion of the problems of race, class, power, prejudice etc, then great, we are basically arguing the same thing.

Anyway, what about it, Kimiko? Should you be cancelled?

Why is this thread in "Sex and Gender"?

Clanchy wasn't held to account because she is female.

Addressed upthread.

If you can't grasp what I'm saying and follow a logical argument, well, you can't. Oh, come on.

And you have not pulled up anyone for pointing out these other descriptors and accused them of thinking that, for example, because they pointed out Ashkenazi nose as an inappropriate description, that means they think having an Ashkenazi nose is bad so they are anti-Semitic. Have you? Why not?

Innocenta has answered on her own behalf - but in fact I have raised that point, albeit less directly, and no one answered, except to say that it wasn't right to raise any physical characteristics at all where they weren't relevant. Now, that is a completely tenable position, but it does mean that to be consistent you should regard 'pretty' and 'freckled' and 'tall' as similar microaggressions. Do you? If you agree with Kimiko's analysis, do you accept that they are also appalling and extremely derogatory?

Or - do you in fact wince a little at the usage of 'butch' or 'brown' because you know, as we all do, that they have (often, perhaps overwhelmingly) been used in a context where they are indisputably slurs, and so you think that they have been associated with oppression for so long that it is in fact impossible to use them to mean only what they mean? That is, no one can ever use them neutrally (unless, perhaps, they explicitly say that they're neutral)? In which case yes, that is internalised prejudice at work - not making anyone a bad person, not making anyone less than well-meaning, but still prejudice - and the way we combat that is not never to say them, but absolutely to keep saying them in contexts where they are true and relevant, and to make sure no value judgement is attached. Prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia - are the establishment of a false relationship between x (true characteristic) and y (bad thing). Regarding x as the thing never to be mentioned locates the source of the harm in entirely the wrong place, and reinforces the equation.

(I do not want to get into another piece of literary criticism, but I would point out that the butch girl with the moustache is presented, in context, as part of a discussion about uniform and forced gender conformity. She is held up as an image of unselfconscious, joyous freedom, contrasted with her older sisters: to accuse Clanchy of judging her for not being "sufficiently feminine" is spectacularly missing the point. But since we are talking about the terms themselves, and not the context, this is a digression.)

you have refused to acknowledge that there might be any context in which those descriptions are defensible

No, I said if it was relevant to do so, then do. Clanchy, from the excerpts, was scattering them all over the place. The only time she acknowledged her ignorance was the Somali incident.

The painful example being the "Ashenazi nose". Completely irrelevant- unless you're the sort of person who thinks it's really important to identify if some- one is Jewish.

Why is this thread in "Sex and Gender"?

Clanchy wasn't held to account because she is female.

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl I felt you said it much better, actually!

Yes, Innocenta, that's how I read it. I suppose I was basically restating the points you were making. As I said - couldn't resist...

@SelfPortraitWithPterodactyl I agree that KimikosNightmare shouldn't be in any material sense punished, cancelled, disallowed from discussion, etc. As I understand it, MN is not a readily-banning forum, but if it were, I am absolutely not coming to this as someone who would support a poster being banned or excluded (as much as I do take issue with what she has said).

As I mentioned upthread, I actually wouldn't normally bother to say a word at the casual assumption of butch being pejorative. This is a common assumption, and we (lesbians) would all be bloody knackered if we chased down every instance of homophobic/lesbophobic language. I also do believe that there just isn't that much value in policing (what some call) microaggressions. As this thread shows, it doesn't enlighten or lead to behavioural change.

The reason why I diverged from my usual 'ignore' in this case was precisely because I was curious about what KimikosNightmare's reaction would be, and whether she'd be able to acknowledge having done something quite similar to Clanchy.

@QueenPeony I already answered that question. I am not a member of the groups in question, so detailed, specific comment about the ins and outs and nuances would not be particularly appropriate. My contribution would be no more useful than KC's.

I have stated time after time (including in my previous answer to you) that I'm not in favour, generally speaking, of teachers commenting on pupil appearance. There are some obvious problems with it in teacher-authored literature. I acknowledge this.

The example I am commenting on is, for the fifteenth or so time, the one where I can speak with authority, experience and familiarity from within an affected community.

To be fair, Peony, I don't think we're trying to shut down the criticism - we're putting the case for the defence and asking for more clarity.

Kimiko, you have refused to acknowledge that there might be any context in which those descriptions are defensible - it seems to me that you don't share Peony's view that Clanchy's attempt at dissecting racism etc would be a defence if she did it better and more explicitly. You're saying that there is no possible context for those descriptions not to be extremely pejorative and appalling. Well, you've already been told quite clearly that it is not universally accepted that those terms are inherently pejorative, and that the assumption that they are is equally offensive. And for what it's worth, I am similarly perplexed. If you genuinely think that "African" or "butch" or "fat" are appalling in themselves, uncoupled from any [other?] derogatory language, then it seems to me that you have as much need to examine your unconscious bias as Clanchy does.

And this is it - this is why I couldn't resist coming back to the thread, in spite of my earlier protestations: here we have someone who has entered into a discussion about race and sex and injustice, who finds herself (I default to she and her on MN, not making any particular assumption about sex) suddenly accused of revealing her own prejudices in a way that she hotly denies. Some people see in her contributions a toxic mix of self-righteous arrogance, repugnant prejudice and catastrophic lack of self-awareness - I'm not commenting on that, beyond saying it is possible to make that argument. It's by no means a consensus that she has done anything wrong at all, but at least one strong voice from a marginalised group has "called her out", to be met with a categorical rebuttal of the charges. Now, the question is, given that there is no wholesale agreement about the offensiveness or otherwise of what she wrote, is this person beyond the pale? Should her contributions (and everything else she has ever written) be disowned, and she be publically punished for daring to speak?

I would say no. I would say that Kimiko's contributions within this thread have been profoundly useful in pushing the discussion on, and although I don't agree with them it would have been a much poorer and less diverse thread without them. I think that we all post in good faith, in a passion for equality, and the arguments need to be spoken aloud, honestly, before we can communally arrive at a better understanding of how we move forward. That's what I think. But if you substitute "Clanchy" for Kimiko in this question, I take it she herself disagrees.