Depressed about Caitlin Moran

[shinynewusername]

I loved How to be a Woman but all her work since seems to have recycled the same ideas and it sounds as if her "new" book will be more of the same.


AIBU to feel she is ripping her public off?

[SkaterGrrrrl]

Her persona is gobby working class chick and if that grates, fair enough.

But her writing can be great, and addresses a range if social issues.

CM on library closures:

nosycrow.com/blog/what-have-they-done-to-my-library-caitlin-moran-s-latest-column/

[SantanaBinLorry]

Random Yosser

[ephemeralfairy]

santana ha ha! I am desperately job-hunting at the moment and played that clip to DP to sum up how I feel!! Must've copied the link by mistake

[APlaceOnTheCouch]

My issue is that these women are framed as the voices of feminism which is not fair to them. I take umbrage with the fact news publications will happily regurgitate the same old CM story rather than feature Bell Hooks, Panashe chigumadzi or Sylvia Wynter.

I think there is a difference between the media 'framing person A' as 'the' voice of feminism and person A sharing their own view or experience of feminism. Media organisations are not representative but it doesn't necessarily follow that Person A is not 'one voice of feminism'.

For example, we work with travelling communities - where are their experiences except the incredibly harmful parody of My Big Fat Gypsy Wedding? Caitlin Moran doesn't cover what it's like to grow up in that community. But she doesn't need to. It's the age-old question of do people with platforms open the door for those coming behind or pull it shut. I feel CM opened it a bit. (Personally imo Lena Dunham just walked through a door that has always been there for white, upper-middle class women with a 'liberal' background).

It shouldn't be a contest and imo it doesn't tend to be black women 'policing' feminism. It's rich white men determining who is worthy of inclusion in the media.

[CrystalMcPistol]

'I put How to be a Woman in my top 5 worst books! But was scared to post any reviews because apparently her and her 'team' annihilate anyone who dares to do that'

Er, what exactly were you worried might happen if you left a less than glowing review on Amazon Waitrose?

[MadamCroquette]

It's a form of internalised misogyny that women feel obliged constantly to police other women

As a left wing person / Labour voter it's normal to discuss and critique the Labour party and its members and policies. As an atheist I can say I find Richard Dawkins annoying and counterproductive.

Why as a feminist is it frowned upon to say you don't agree with someone else's idea of feminism, or the messages they are sending to women? I get really riled by this idea of "we all have to suck up to each other and agree with each other because we're women/feminists". No I don't. And in fact to say that is to do women a disservice, almost is if to say that they are special petals who can't be criticised.

If I find Lowri Turner, Julie Myerson or Katie Hopkins' pronouncements / messages to be bollocks that's unhelpful for women, should I be gagged? Because they're women too. What about Margaret Thatcher? Arguably an incredibly important woman who in some ways could be seen as a role model for feminists. In other ways, not and any woman who has the power of thought should be allowed to have an opinion on that. It's not policing, it's debate.

With CM for example I think saying "I won't go on a panel show and make them more female, I'll just hide" and "Oh if I pull a silly face for every photo, no one will say anything about my appearance" to be really crap messages that I should be entitled to pull apart and remark on.

I am not bitching or trolling or indeed "policing" CM or being nasty about her appearance. If I think her books don't add up to feminism, or that some of the things she says are counterproductive to feminism, if you tell me I can't say so then you are shutting me down and policing me. So why is that OK then?

[shinynewusername]

It's rich white men determining who is worthy of inclusion in the media.

That's true but it helps rich white men to hang onto power if the response to a woman expressing an opinion is a barrage of criticism from other women about her right to express that opinion (as opposed to debating the ideas expressed). It feeds the "Girls, girls, please don't fight" misogynistic narrative that women are their own worst enemy and it deters other women from speaking out.

I think one of the drivers is that women are heavily socialised to believe that there is a single Right and Wrong way for women to do....pretty much everything. You see this on MN all the time. Men, meanwhile, are taught that whatever they do is correct unless proven otherwise (and not always then ). And men are very rarely called upon to represent all men, whereas feminist writers are expected to represent all women and get flak if they don't.

[shinynewusername]

Madamcroquette - not sure if your last post was to me, but I wasn't thinking of you or anyone else on this thread when I talked about policing. I mean the reaction in the media from other feminist voices when a feminist speaks out.

I completely agree that women should be free to criticise other women. My point is complimentary to yours - women should be free to express any view, it shouldn't have to be the perfect, inclusive, pan-feminist view.

[MadamCroquette]

You could just as easily say it helps rich white men to hang onto power if they promote and select women's writing that is all about being funny and bubbly and personal and faux-"outrageous" because you are prepared to mention periods and wanking, instead of writing that tackles the issues facing women and calls for change in a more coherent way.

[shinynewusername]

OK, I'm walking away because you seem to want to have a one-sided argument with me for some reason. I haven't disagreed with anything you have said.

[MadamCroquette]

OK shiny, apologies if I misunderstood.

[MadamCroquette]

My previous post about rich white men was an x-post.

[APlaceOnTheCouch]

MadamCroquette I feel as though I have missed something . . . my point was that rich white men do tend to dominate publishing and the media so yy the voices given platforms are to a certain extent determined by them.

What they can't determine is how people react to those voices. So, they can give CM a newspaper column, a book deal, a TV series. But they can't control that you consider her writing to be 'faux-'outrageous'' or that you would prefer 'writing that tackles issues facing women and calls for change in a more coherent way'. They also can't control that some young women credit her for introducing them to 'feminism'.

I'm not trying to police anyone's feminism. That's exactly the point I was making. I think CM opened the door a little. Other people don't. This thread is full of dissenting opinions about her.

[TakeMeUpTheNorthMountain]

I had forgotten about Lette - I remember reading her when I was about 18 and thinking she was hilarious but I soon grew out of it!

[LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett]

I guess I see any step forward as a step forward. It is challenging (for FFS, in 2016) to have a high-profile woman talking about periods and wanking. Periods and wanking (or at least sexuality) are issues that face women.

Of course it would be infinitely preferable if the debate had moved on by now. But it hasn't. So we each do what we can.

[Helmetbymidnight]

I guess I see any step forward as a step forward.

Yes, I think she's used her talent as a writer to bring about lots of positive changes in attitudes. I don't think that's true of that many other columnists/writers today.

And she has her favourite subjects/her pet issues obviously - but still, I find her contribution interesting and not in the least depressing.

[SpoiltMardyCow]

I like her CW in the Friday issue of the Times but I often wonder if it goes over the head of most of their readers.

I think she's honest and unpretentious and that's what I like about her.

I hate it though when she turns interviews into non-critical, matey schmoozefests and always talks about TITS.

I think she writes quite beautifully at times and has a great turn of phrase. I kind of feel badly because she's probably going to read this [waves hello!].

I just like her and would love to have a girls night out with her and Camilla Long.

[limitedperiodonly]

I agree with MadamCroquette's post of 11.48

What I find most irritating about Caitlin Moran is her constant theme of telling you how it is and then denying she poses as a spokeswoman for all women.

Someone posted a link to a list of her advice to teenage girls. It centred on self-loathing. That's not my experience. I didn't loathe any aspect of myself either as a teenager or an adult and I don't think I'm unusual.

That may be true of Caitlyn Moran and many other women, but not me. So I resent her assumptions and the credence they're given.

Similarly, I don't need her to advise me on feminism and never did, so I'm irritated by people who say they read HTBAW and gave it to all their friends and it raised their consciousness.

If you had the cheek to give me that book it would be my eyebrow, not my consciousness that I'd raise.

I sympathise with her belief, mentioned by ItGoesWithoutSaying, that if people keep offering you money and attention, you take it in case one day the music stops and you find yourself without a chair.

But that doesn't mean to say that I agree with or admire her output.

[motherinferior]

I like some of her stuff (I agree with her about flat shoes and big pants). What I do dislike - and she's far from the only person to do this - is the feminism-lite of 'I like this and I am feminist so this is a feminist thing'. It's lazy and frankly not nearly as interesting as 'I like this and I am a feminist so how do I square the two' in any case.

[APlaceOnTheCouch]

Do we need to constantly add disclaimers of NAFALM (not all feminists are like me)?

I'm intrigued by the notion that she poses as a spokeswoman for all women. I am, by no means, an avid reader of everything she has written but what I have read seems very rooted in a sense of who she is, her background and her history. She very obviously isn't speaking for upper middle class white women, for feminist theorists, for black women, for minority women, etc, etc.

[LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett]

What I find most irritating about Caitlin Moran is her constant theme of telling you how it is and then denying she poses as a spokeswoman for all women. Someone posted a link to a list of her advice to teenage girls. It centred on self-loathing. That's not my experience. I didn't loathe any aspect of myself either as a teenager or an adult and I don't think I'm unusual.

Is that you posing as a spokesperson for all women there limited? Is that you telling me how it is? Because a lot of teenage girls DO have low self esteem/ self loathing. Why shouldn't she tell that story?

[flightywoman]

I read one really good piece by her years ago in The Word, about how tedious people who take cocaine are. It was so good.

Everything else just annoys me, for pretty much all the reasons everyone else has given - she doesn't speak to me at all, in any of her experiences as a child or an adult...

Can we put Julie Burchill in the room too please. She's another one who is completely in thrall to her own myth.

[limitedperiodonly]

No Lonny I'm not posting as a speaker for all women. I thought I made that clear when I said that I believed Moran and other women did and possibly still do loathe themselves, but I didn't and believe that I'm not alone.

I was irritated by this statement:

1. Self-loathing is the default mode of the teenage girl.

Not this teenage girl. That's a damaging statement because if girls don't loathe themselves and their 'fat' thighs, what does that say about them? That they're too big for their boots?

Neither do I find being a woman 'exhausting, joyless and high-maintenance'. I'm not going to burst into a chorus of 'I enjoy being a girl' but I don't recognise her description.

Here's the full list of things Moran thinks all teenage girls should know

My main problem is with No 1. The rest of it, yeah, fair enough. But we're not talking about the revelation of any great truths. We're talking more about writing stuff for money. Which, again, I have no problem with.

[limitedperiodonly]

4. Your key hobbies need to be long country walks (get some fresh air in your lungs), masturbation, and the revolution. Between those three, you should, in the long term, stay relatively sane.


WTF is this bit of Caitlyn's advice to teenage girls about, aside from being attention-seeking wank?

I stayed in watching telly as a child and teenager. I’ve managed to turn my pastime into an enjoyable and lucrative career. I was also a keen member of the chess club at school, mainly because it meant I could stay in and avoid bracing lungfuls of air.

I am a member of a union and have been on picket lines but don’t want to overthrow the government, though I will be voting for Sadiq Khan for London Mayor as my first step to getting the Conservatives out through peaceful means.

I don’t masturbate. That probably outs me as sexually repressed. Hey ho. I don’t mind if other people masturbate but if they are going to do it in my presence, I’d appreciate a heads up.

[Costacoffeeplease]

She's endlessly tedious - as are most of her mates - Lauren Laverne, Sali Hughes et al

I always feel sorry for her husband, he seems so lovely, and she ...... doesn't