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

And you still - despite repeatedly quoting the Somali/Kenyan thing as an issue - haven’t said how it could be addressed in writing if one is to tell the story.

That's some impressive straw clutching. It's a slim book- are you seriously suggesting readers wouldn't be able to recall the boy's name?

Yup! Apparently you didn’t, with your close attention to the text…

I'm reading the bowdlerised version. It has made the cut.

The Cypriot bosom, the Ashkenazi nose, the girl who wasn't pretty, the Muslim girl with a moustache, African Jonathan have all been purged.

meant, in shorthand, Jonathan, who we met very briefly and much earlier in the book, when we were discussing his acceptance speech on winning an award, when his ‘slow, resonant African accent’ was given in part of his description

Yes, it’s clumsy to have used only ‘African’ as his description in the latter mention - but equally if she’d just said ‘Jonathon’ it’s a stretch we’d remember exactly which boy he was, given this book is intentionally steeped in race and how that interacts with the wider political landscape these kids sit within

That's some impressive straw clutching. It's a slim book- are you seriously suggesting readers wouldn't be able to recall the boy's name?

Or if she thinks her readers really do have such a short attention span, she could have referenced the event where we first met him.

What's an "African" accent anyway? Oh I know that "American accents" are referred to but even then it's often broken down to "Southern" "Texas", "New Jersey" , "New Orleans"

Incidentally, why is this in Sex and Gender?

@NoSquirrels - for what it's worth, I really appreciate your thoughts.

excuse the ignorant approaches to the Somali / Kenyan ethicity

I did ask you explicitly earlier, Kimiko, how should she have told that story?

(Argh. Going away now, somebody make me!)

Butch can just mean masculine, it can mean a type of masculine gay man too.

Eh?

I have never heard this.

(I did say I was done with this thread, but that has just made me a bit bristly. Because gay blokes have their own language and, given the tensions between lesbians and gay men I very much doubt that if ‘butch’ is used it is as a neutral description for ‘that hot macho dude’. But I’ll step off as this isn’t my wheelhouse.)

There are posters at best ignoring and at worst, defending comments about girls being fat, not pretty, having a moustache, having a "Cypriot bosom", wearing a "flirty hijab", analysis of skull types, a boy described as "African Jonathan"

What on earth was that last one meant to mean?

It meant, in shorthand, Jonathan, who we met very briefly and much earlier in the book, when we were discussing his acceptance speech on winning an award, when his ‘slow, resonant African accent’ was given in part of his description.

Yes, it’s clumsy to have used only ‘African’ as his description in the latter mention - but equally if she’d just said ‘Jonathon’ it’s a stretch we’d remember exactly which boy he was, given this book is intentionally steeped in race and how that interacts with the wider political landscape these kids sit within.

The piece about the fat girls is shocking, not gonna lie. But it’s honest, in context, about her own ‘middle-class waist’ her middle-class attitudes and class privilege to not eat poorly, to think she’s ‘worth it’. She’s - rather shockingly, exposingly - saying we judge fat people and we judge fat women and girls disproportionately and here’s why there’s emotional trauma and generational trauma of poverty behind their “choices” which aren’t choices at all. That we shouldn’t judge.

It’s why I’m baffled people aren’t seeing the clear intent in the context of the writing.

Fine, “Ashkenazi nose” is misjudged, “African Jonathon” is a poor call-back to reference the character etc. ‘Flirty hijab’ sounds awful by itself - but it’s in a discussion of how the girls who wear hijab feel more free from the male gaze and you need to read the whole thing to see the balanced argument she’s making on its significance.

I hear the resounding yell of ‘intent doesn’t matter’.

But I really fundamentally and truly think that it does. Intent does matter. How can it not?

Who can speak if we cannot have a conversation that isn’t just ‘you can’t say that’.

That’s all I’ve got from this - certain people are so outraged by anything even being discussed in writing by this middle-aged, middle-class white woman that she should say nothing - because to describe what you see from your own point of view is abhorrent.

I don’t disagree with points made by many posters in this thread that mentions of race or physical appearance etc must be relevant to the discussion to not be racist.

I just cannot fathom how people are reading the same book as me and thinking it’s not relevant.

So I’m as deeply baffled and perturbed and worried by this as the posters saying they cannot believe anyone is defending KC.

I’m not defending her - I think there’s a butt-load of issues I’m uncomfortable with so I can’t defend her as a person who made rubbish public profile decisions. The renewed publicity feels a bit ick, if I’m honest. I don’t think she’s being well advised on how to navigate this.

But her book? And her right to discuss her own viewpoint in writing and the fundamental principle of reading a whole work and considering context? Yes, I’ll defend that.

I think I’m done for this thread now though.

The hypocritical one in this thread is you, @KimikosNightmare. You seem to feel it's acceptable to critique others on anything you may find offensive... Very well, I'm not necessarily oppposed to calling things out. I think shining a light on problematic language is okay, though I don't support cancellation or sexist punishment aimed at women.

However, when you yourself engage in homophobic behaviour (and bear in mind, I have literally directly quoted you...!), you think you should be immune from challenge. Indeed, you attack someone in the marginalised group harmed by your behaviours.

@QueenPeony I'm commenting on 'butch' because I can speak from an authoritative position. It would be pretty weird for me to try to comment (beyond saying as I have many times that teachers commenting on appearance = not good) in detail on most of the others.

And you are both offensive and incorrect. Butch is a lesbian identity; you denying that doesn't change reality.

it's a uniquely lesbian identity

No it isn't! Butch can just mean masculine, it can mean a type of masculine gay man too. You can't just take a word and say it only belongs to lesbians. Well you can I guess, but you're wrong and it; snot how language works.

This argument is silly because I think it's clear that KC was not suggesting the girl was a butch lesbian specifically. So KC also apparently isn't in agreement with you that this is a word just for lesbians. She was using it as a not very sensitive (at best) way to talk about a girl's appearance, unnecessarily.

You're having a massive go at Kimoko on a basis that makes no logical sense.

Several people on this thread have talked about KC's various descriptions of many physical attributes. ONLY with "butch" have you said that this means the person talking about it thinks it's a bad thing to be.

“Partly because she writes with an often self-lacerating honesty, and in a way that explicitly shows her moving from positions of ignorance – or even prejudice – to ones of understanding, reasonable people have disagreed as to whether she was able successfully to capture the potential tensions between difference and sameness without exacerbating them,” said the publisher. “But it is our fundamental view as a publisher that readers should be able to make up their own minds.’*

But she didn't move from a position of ignorance. The book was published with all those awful sections and judgemental comments.

She has been forced to remove the worst of them. The version now available has been cleansed of almost all the content to which objection was taken.

I read butch in the context of what Clanchy wrote as "not being sufficiently feminine"

In this thread generally, and this is not directed specifically at you , I'm really surprised at the level of hypocrisy involved in defending Clanchy.

There are posters at best ignoring and at worst, defending comments about girls being fat, not pretty, having a moustache, having a "Cypriot bosom", wearing a "flirty hijab", analysis of skull types, a boy described as "African Jonathan"

What on earth was that last one meant to mean? There are defenders on here alleging that she just wanted to consider the children's cultural heritage. That's been used to excuse the ignorant approaches to the Somali / Kenyan ethicity and the boy with the Ashkenazi nose.

That defence looks a bit thin if she can then attribute the culture of an entire continent to one boy.

Thanks for adding that, @ArabellaScott . Frankly, I know it's silly to be exercised or upset by some random on MN denying that butchness belongs to lesbians... whatever Kimiko says, doesn't change the truth. And realistically I shouldn't expect FWR to be free of homophobia (lesbophobia).

But still, like, wow.

The term "butch" isn't a term I even connect with lesbian

That's risible given it's a uniquely lesbian identity. You're actually doubling down and being even more gross with this. @KimikosNightmare

[quote Innocenta]**@NickiMinajerie* You have every right to take issue with KC (and there are plenty of things she said in her book that I would never say, and that I think are antiquated, offensive expressions, etc.). That's not the point I am making, though. KC might or might not be homophobic; I have no idea. But KimikosNightmare is* being, in this thread, and that's what I am responding to. [/quote]
The term "butch" isn't a term I even connect with lesbian. I read it as not being sufficiently feminine which it clearly was meant that way when used in connection with talking about a moustache.

But carry on deflecting. I am not going to apologise to you.

@KimikosNightmare Why do you think looking butch is a bad thing? You need to do some unpacking yourself, in making that assumption, because as a lesbian I find it pretty damn offensive.

Innocenta I think you've definitely made 2 and 2 make 5 here.

Clanchy described a girl as butch and having a moustache - neither of those things are in themselves bad, but nor is having brown skin, a particular shape of head, a Jewish nose, a curvy body shape, lots of the other things she said.

Kimiko pointing out it does not mean Kimiko thinks butch is bad. It's just a very inappropriately personal description that comes over as if Clanchy thinks it's an unfortunate look, or at least something she's entitled to raise. Much like the rest of her physical comments.

It would be different if this was a self-avowedly butch teenager and her butchness was part of what she wanted to talk about and how she wanted to express herself. This is pretty clearly not that. It's about using butch as a way of saying "unfeminine" - but, of course, that's from KC's POV.

@NickiMinajerie You have every right to take issue with KC (and there are plenty of things she said in her book that I would never say, and that I think are antiquated, offensive expressions, etc.). That's not the point I am making, though. KC might or might not be homophobic; I have no idea. But KimikosNightmare is being, in this thread, and that's what I am responding to.

I am more butch than femme. You could describe me as such and I would agree - throw a comment about a moustache in there, though, and it is clear that I, like the child, do not seemingly fit with Clancy's perceived norms. Kimiko isn't the one being homophobic there.