Owen Jones “supporters” “visit” Giles Coren’s home

[DrinkFeckArseGirls]

Right, not sure you’ll agree that this belongs in Feminism as such but as it involves women’s greatest fanboy (not) Owen Jones I thought it’d be of an interest. Just to show what sort of people support him and his ideas.
Giles Coren might be a tit but I can’t imagine his column readers visiting his adversaries‘ homes and upsetting their families. It’s the paragraph titled “Beyond a joke“.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cereal-boxes-make-me-snap-crackle-and-pop-85tv05h8t

😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

Wankpottery

I don't think we're that far apart Floral. I'm just concerned about drawing a connection between one person's words and another person's violent behaviour. I think that could come back and bite us pretty hard.

First off the actions of this mob are appalling and i hope the full force of the law is directed at them.

Agree also that OJ does tend to drop twitter bombs and then go all wide-eyed and "i didn't mean that to happen". He used to be ok but in recent years he's disappeared up his own arse.

Coren is a wankspangle. But i don't buy that he didn't know Jones was gay since it's pretty much pointed out to everyone in the country on a daily basis by someone or other. And because i don't buy that he's gay i think his tweet was on the homophobic side because if he was talking about lecherous MPs (who chase skirt all the live long day) he would have said "boobies" instead of bottoms. (I actually thought the tweet was rather clever, tbh, but then Coren does have his moments)

Bollocks, with all due respect. Heterosexual men are fond of the female arse every bit as much as boobies. The only reason to assume this was a homophobic joke is to automatically connect gay men with arses, which is itself, pretty bloody homophobic.

Why am I still here? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣

When this all started unfolding, I thought surely GC must know OJ is gay - doesn't everyone? But then I considered GC - he is very self-obsessed. I doubt he shares the same social circle as OJ because OJ surrounds himself with political/momentum types more than journalists. He's regularly at odds with other writers at The Guardian. GC may just know OJ as the bloke who writes for The Guardian and seems to be on the TV all the bloody time about politics.

I agree the tweet was quite cleverly written and that it would be hard to make an accusation of homophobia stick. But being clever with words is Coren's job. It is also part of his job to make contacts and to know what's going on. I think that if he genuinely didn't know about OJ being gay then that would be quite startling.

And I'm now beginning to repeat myself so, unless some new info comes to light, then I too am out of here.

Floisme, I agree. It is quite dog-whistle; yes, the idea of grabbing 'arses' can easily be connected with older men letching over younger women, but there is certainly a connection between the idea of arses and gay men too. I think it's a classic example of 'read your own ideas/prejudices into it'.

No, I don't want you to glaze it.

I think regardless of whether GC knew OJ was gay, someone involved in the process at The Times would have known. GC is deliberately provocative. His columns go through a process and get signed off. The issue then becomes that they didn't think it was homophobic to present OJ as a lech.
Regardless, no-one should have an angry mob turning up at their door for an article. OJ is supposed to be a journalist. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press depend on being able to write without fear of violence. Otherwise, you're using intimidation to create a circle of censorship.

And this, my friends, is the current state of the British mediating class. They'd do us all a favour if they just shut the fuck up.

Yes. It's incredibly childish, isn't it? It's back to shouting names at each other in the playground. And these are grown men.

When Coren made that possibly homophobic remark (in a Times article, not a tweet), the mature response would have been either to ignore it or contact the Times's editor about it. Tweeting it so that your million followers can get all outraged on your behalf is just nasty and pathetic.

I think what I really loathe about OJ is the sanctimony. That whole Medium article drips with self-pity. Poor little innocent OJ, who never did anyone any harm, the victim of nasty right-wing homophobes. He doesn't even have the basic decency to condemn the people who went round Coren's house. And all the fanboys commenting under the Medium article about how much they love him - what on earth is wrong with these people?

When Coren made that possibly homophobic remark (in a Times article, not a tweet), the mature response would have been either to ignore it or contact the Times's editor about it.

^^ This, and what Lang said about wankpottery.

It is so much like the boys at my school trying to get one up on each other, with added real life menaces to real life bystanders.

(TBH, if I had not read FWR over the last two years, I probably would not even know OJ existed, and I think that goes for probably an awful lot of people.)

This reaction is part and parcel of the 'punch a Nazi' ethos. It seems to be a widespread belief amongst the woke left that some people are so beyond the pale that reasonable bounds of behaviour no longer apply to them.

twitter.com/mariecurieuk/status/1208032707231571968

Marie Curie celebrity frontman

I had no idea OJ was gay! I don't have Twitter for a start.

The trope of gay man as sexual predator is a misogynistic one. It's based on the fear that men and boys could be treated the way women and girls are i.e. regularly subjected to sexual harassment and assault, coerced or persuaded into sexual activity when too young to be able to resist or properly understand what they're getting into, etc. The fear that gay men are as likely to treat men and boys this way as straight men are to treat women and girls this way means gay men must be demonised.

Nobody blinks an eye at an insinuation that a letchy old man might look at young women's bottoms. But a letchy old man looking at young men's bottoms is abhorrent because the victims are men, so it's terrible and homophobic to accuse someone of such a thing and put them at risk of attack.

Basically it's straight men assuming that gay men are as scummy as they are.

Was that vile photo of OJ and the t-shirt girl before or after GC’s comment?

Because I can quite understand anyone condemning him as a lech after seeing it.

Tanith I think the pic was before because GC's comment was in relation to the NY honour's list and the pic was around the election.

What has been a complete eye-opener for me is seeing male former colleagues (particularly in the media) saying GC's wife and family deserved to be abused because she married him. They're all conveniently ignoring the children in their rationale. They're also pretending people are incensed/annoyed because GC was forced off Twitter rather than because a mob turned up at a journalist's house in response to an article and intimidated his wife and DCs. So many men hate women and only see them as the property of other men. God, I'm getting tired of it.

But it's not homophobic to present OJ as a lech. It might be untrue, but there are just as many lecherous gay men as straight ones. It can really taint the gay social scene for some men who don't want that, just as it does for some women.

Because there is a long history of demonising gay men as depraved sexual predators. It may not be a stereotype that you recognise or aware of, but that doesn't mean that the tired old trope is not offensive to gay men.

We are very much on the other side of that now though. Not only apparently can't we speak about gay men like any others, almost any type of odd sexual behaviour, simply by being associated vaguely with the queer community, is exempt from being called lecherous.

I don't think the lecherous gay man trope has much power these days, but making it so that gay men, even as individuals, have always to be presented as sexually moderate, isn't really much better in the end. It still stops short of treating people as themselves, as a variable group of individuals.

Well, witness what happened when a creepy rubber wanker employed by the NSPCC took pictures of himself and Owen Jones called the criticism homophobic. Rather than gay men still being cast as perves, I would suggest that OJ's reaction to rubber wanker is entirely the opposite, that homosexuality in blokes is a bit of a teflon coating if protection even if you are quite the creepy inappropriate kinkster. There are a few other notable gay men with similar questionable behaviour that are protected by this veneer, so much so that I know I can't name them because, to prove my point, posts that do discuss their behaviour tend to disappear. But if I allude to medical professionals on the telly, it may assist understanding.

Did he really call that NSPCC rubber drama homophobic? He really is dreadful. Never misses an opportunity to be completely wrong.

He did indeed. As far as I can work it out, OJ thinks saying anything "mean and bad" about a gay man is homophobic.

The editor of Teen Vogue responded to criticism of his mag's anal sex article aimed at teens (more likely tweens really, teens would be reading the grownup Vogue past a certain point) by calling it homophobic too. Even though the article was very clearly aimed at a female audience. So yeah, not only teflon but knowingly deployed when wrong teflon.

The editor of Teen Vogue responded to criticism of his mag's anal sex article aimed at teens

"his mag."

Says it all. Grown men giving advice on sex to teen girls? There should be a law against that.

I had no idea the editor of Teen Vogue was a man.