Douglas Murray on JKR

[lucymaudmonty]

As someone who has long thought of myself as a left leaning feminist I am surprised by how much I increasingly agree with every word Douglas Murray writes.

Here is on JKR

unherd.com/2020/06/why-j-k-rowling-had-to-be-denounced/

Douglas Murray is part of a shrinking group who are still courageous enough/independently wealthy enough to say what they believe is ‘true’ without having to give a shit about what the ‘mob’ is demanding we believe/say

In these times this is becoming increasingly rare and increasingly important.

Totally agree with that. He also gets away with it more than he would if he was a woman, something he should be aware of.

I’d like to see DM in discussion with a radfem and see how his position holds up. To be clear, I don’t mean that in confrontational way, rather that I’d be interested to see if he’s able to gain awareness of what looks to us like a blind spot.

I've been thinking about this business of the sexual power of young women. Where it fits in in terms of other kinds of power.

It seems to me it is most similar to something like the physical power of young, strong men. It's something that many healthy young man can draw on to some extent, though some young men aren't healthy and strong. It's also somewhat transient, and it's as likely to make you good cannon fodder for people with other kinds of power as to make you one of those people who make the decisions about where to send young men.

In some environments, you may be able to leverage that into some other kind of more lasting power, especially if you are also clever or hardworking or have some other resources to draw from.

Similar for young women's sexual power - yes, it can be used to gain some advantage, and to acquire more lasting kinds of power if you are lucky and smart etc, but for a lot of young attractive women they are equivalent to a useful young soldier who has a good chance of being blown up, or just getting old and being mentally and physically damaged without much to show for it.

I am much happier now I am older and don't wield this so-called sexual power. It certainly didn't feel like it was helpful to my career having a boss that wanted to get in my knickers. It felt like a minefield that could blow up in my face at any minute.

The benefits of "sexual power" for women tend to be pretty frivolous - e.g. jumping the queue for a nightclub, getting a free drink from the barman. The risks are much higher - e.g. sexual harassment and assault.

As others have said, his chapter on women in TMoC is definitely the weakest, although he raises many interesting points.

He definitely has other ‘blind spots’ - his comments about couples living in cities choosing to delay parenthood in the Strange Death of Europe were some way off the mark in my opinion (although that’s just my opinion). I think David Goodhart probably has a better grasp on this subject.

Nevertheless, I admire his determination to speak up for what he believes is ‘right’ even if that means writing in the defence of those he has clashed with in the past (I’m thinking here of his article in defence of Selina Todd). There aren’t many people who would do that nowadays.

TheRealMcKenna "In these times this is becoming increasingly rare and increasingly important.

I don’t agree with many of his opinions, but that is true of pretty much everyone. I think I am probably the only person who holds the same opinions as me on all aspects of life." 100% agree.

WeetabixBananaHipsterFFS yes that would be an interesting debate.

Do you think he is a kind of UK gay non-Jewish version of the American guy whose name escapes me 'facts don't care about your feeelings guy'??

I mean Ben Shapiro of course.

I’ve just finished The Madness Of Crowds, and found it extremely interesting. I agree with PPs that the chapters on feminism are notably weaker than the rest, and I found them rather frustrating. I wanted to take a red pen to some bits and write “citation needed” and “yes, Douglas, but WHY?” over large swathes of it.

I did find it useful in that it made me look into some of my thinking that he challenged, and that’s never a bad thing. And for all I disagreed with him, he puts his case well, and with bravery and conviction, and I’d like to see a lot more writing like that.

I do recommend the audio book, he narrates it himself and that waspish delivery cracks me up

I think a true test of one's principles is if they are willing to defend someone they disliked or strongly disagreed with or don't have much in common with.

It's easy to defend free speech in the context of someone you admire or who shares the same ideas as you.

The real purpose of defending free speech is for when we are faced with views we strongly disagree with or even find offensive and feel defensive about.
I don't know how many feminists would publicly defend free speech of men who are critical of feminism or issues related to feminism. I would hope a decent number would put principle over ideology.

I don't have to agree with Douglas Murray on various issues, but I respect and appreciate his willingness to defend free speech and defend feminists who are being harassed and hounded in their professions, and I admire his opposition to TRAs and social justice lefty types who are more than happy to mow down anyone they disagree with in the name of 'progress'.

Critique of DM's analysis is good, however it's also important to be able to self-reflect whether a personal viewpoint or position is sound and whether we can persuasively argue our point instead of 'well because feminism says so'.

The one good thing to come about due to trans activism and other similar types of activism, is that it has brought together some unlikely bedfellows. It has resulted in people putting aside differences and realising there are much bigger issues at stake. The modern, democratic principles and freedoms we cherish or take for granted are under assault by an intolerant and loud faction. These fanatics can only build their 'inclusive' utopia by forcibly excluding and ejecting everyone who disagrees with them. Religious fanatics talk about 'God's love and mercy' at the pulpit while stoning you to death in the public square. Social justice fanatics are exactly the same. It is the same mentality. They use words like 'inclusivity' and 'kindness' while doing the exact opposite.

The free speech angle came up in Brendan O’Neill’s podcast with Meghan Murphy. She admitted she hadn’t given it a lot of thought previously and hoped that more feminists would support it now.

As much as a lot of us can’t stand people like Toby Young, iirc he came out in support of Glinner at one point I think.

I mean Ben Shapiro of course.

I’m not sure they are particularly similar. They have some beliefs in common (fierce defenders of free speech), but they are as different as night and day on some topics. It’s a bit like saying he is a male version of Kate Hoey because they are both ardent Brexiteers.

He probably has more in common with Sam Harris.

While I've always been a feminist, I actually joined the trans debate from the free speech angle rather than the women's rights angle. I found a Julie Bindel interview on YouTube which had a "content warning" on it and was astonished when I realised what YouTube was considering offensive content. That was the same week that Megan Murphy was banned from Twitter.

I've lived in a country where there is no freedom of speech and so maybe that gives me a different perspective. It's hard to explain what it's like to live in a state of perpetual fear of saying the wrong thing and being reported for it. You start to doubt your own sanity. I think I'd give up most other rights before I give up the right to freedom of speech.

it's also important to be able to self-reflect whether a personal viewpoint or position is sound and whether we can persuasively argue our point
I agree, but Murray should do the same when it comes to feminist issues and I don't think we should be too generous to him. At best, I think he's ill-informed and biased, some of his arguments in the feminist section of his book read like something an incel who's never been anywhere near a woman would write. They fall apart with the tiniest bit of scrutiny. I find it difficult to accept how such an otherwise intelligent man could have so many holes in his arguments. I suspect it's a knee-jerk reaction to the shouty tactics of modern day liberal feminism and the over-reach of policing language etc, so he takes a sledgehammer to all feminism rather than delving deeper and having a more nuanced approach.

I like what goosefoot said yesterday at 16.14

...and with him and the Triggernometry 'lads', I think it's about preserving a status quo in terms of cultural norms and not wishing to examine themselves. I think these men are all accepting of the idea of women being equal in the eyes of the law, but feel uncomfortable when they have to think any deeper about the ways in which the cultural norms they take for granted might need to change to allow women something resembling true equal opportunities in life. It's too close to the bone, and the 'shouty' feminists give them an excuse to dismiss it all.

@BaronessBrighterThanYou

I like what goosefoot said yesterday at 16.14

Me too. If Murray had actually thought about it a little deeper and put his bias to one side, he might have come to the same conclusions.

Great post, nonnymouse.

I agree he reminds me in many ways of Sam Harris, who I’ve read and listened to a lot, and who has a similar failure of intellect/bravery/analysis when it comes to feminism. Neither of them attempt to get underneath it and really understand what’s going on, they both just prefer to roll their eyes a bit and mutter “women, eh?”. Like Murray’s take on mansplaining was very poor, as he took it to mean any time a man is patronising- the original meaning is when a man attempts to patronise a woman who can reasonably be expected to know as much or more about the man on the topic at hand. It’s a particular behaviour, it’s not just women being rude to a man because he’s boring or patronising.

And I gave up on Harris’ podcast as it was such a relentless sausage fest, and he didn’t even get why that might be boring, as much as anything else, never mind “problematic” in that he seems to struggle to find women interesting, or find interesting women to talk to. Then when the whole “penis as metaphor” academic piss take happened, he took the opportunity to shit on all forms of feminism, rather than just the post modern festival of pseudery that spawned it, that everyone except Sally Hines hates.

So while I find these authors interesting, and I’ll continue to read them so I don’t get stuck in my bubble, it’s always with a critical eye and an awareness that we may not be lasting allies.

I like the Triggernometry interviews because they do a good job of just letting the interviewer talk without constant interruption. But those guys are pretty bad at picking up on glaring holes in people's arguments and just tend to agree with whoever they're speaking to. The exception being Posie Parker who they really did grill (surprise surprise!).

Unfortunately those Triggernometry "lads" are pretty old school and do seem to struggle to shake off the idea that women are emotional/caring creatures and men are natural aggressors. Even when they're being eaten alive by Posie Parker!

So while I find these authors interesting, and I’ll continue to read them so I don’t get stuck in my bubble, it’s always with a critical eye and an awareness that we may not be lasting allies.
Completely agree. I often find Douglas Murray spot-on on current affairs, I just don't like the idea of setting the bar too low and allowing a free pass for poor and biased arguments, due to being grateful for someone doing what everyone should be doing - ie. defending freedom of speech.

@TheRealMcKenna

As others have said, his chapter on women in TMoC is definitely the weakest, although he raises many interesting points.

He definitely has other ‘blind spots’ - his comments about couples living in cities choosing to delay parenthood in the Strange Death of Europe were some way off the mark in my opinion (although that’s just my opinion). I think David Goodhart probably has a better grasp on this subject.

Nevertheless, I admire his determination to speak up for what he believes is ‘right’ even if that means writing in the defence of those he has clashed with in the past (I’m thinking here of his article in defence of Selina Todd). There aren’t many people who would do that nowadays.

I agree. It shows a consistency which is notable by its absence in many of the most vocal proponents of 'social justice.'

I find it difficult to accept how such an otherwise intelligent man could have so many holes in his arguments.

This seems to be something that afflicts most people I think. You can be very insightful on certain issues and very naive or uninformed about others. It's easy for most people to forget that feminism has a variety of viewpoints and assume it's a homogeneous group based on what's more publicly visible, which is the liberal type of feminism at the moment. The triggernometry guys said similar, that they have now realised there are these differences of opinions within feminism that they hadn't quite grasped or appreciated before.

As for any desire to preserve the status quo - I don't blame them. I've never understood the argument in saying a certain group has dominance and power, but then also saying this group must do things that would give up such dominance and power. Why would anyone do something like that?

Social justice fanatics are exactly the same. It is the same mentality. They use words like 'inclusivity' and 'kindness' while doing the exact opposite

Nonny I think that is a really interesting comparison. The 'public square' is social media and the stoning equivalent is being accused, demonized and then hopefully cancelled. Demotion to 'unperson' is the aim. All of this while braying about 'inclusivity' and 'kindness.' It is taken for granted that neither applies to anyone who questions the increasingly prescriptive goodthink....

A bit of an aside from the main debate but I am sure Shelley Winters talked about putting on her 'fuck-me' shoes when getting ready for a night out (1930s and 40s) @Emmuvva

@twoHopes

I like the Triggernometry interviews because they do a good job of just letting the interviewer talk without constant interruption. But those guys are pretty bad at picking up on glaring holes in people's arguments and just tend to agree with whoever they're speaking to. The exception being Posie Parker who they really did grill (surprise surprise!).

Unfortunately those Triggernometry "lads" are pretty old school and do seem to struggle to shake off the idea that women are emotional/caring creatures and men are natural aggressors. Even when they're being eaten alive by Posie Parker!

Yeah, I found Triggernometry quite refreshing at first, but they're happy to house the usual misogyny from MRAs in their comments section.