David Aaronovitch Review of Helen Joyce's Book

[Igneococcus]

In the Times today:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a9738a12-e57d-11eb-afdb-c7b01afbcfc5?shareToken=bde4e05d2955fb1682ae3da09be1f707

Final paragaph:

"I’m off the fence. I will call people by the name and pronouns they tell me they want to be called by. I am prepared to defend their right not to be discriminated against at work and in shops, to defend them against bullying and harassment. But as Joyce says so passionately, that doesn’t change reality. A penis is a male sex organ, men don’t have babies. Women exist."

Bugger, got my Aaronovitches mixed up.

@OvaHere

If the book has a flaw it is that Joyce is sometimes too angry and polemical. This is a book that needs to be read by those who think they might disagree with her far more than by those who already agree, so tone matters. But I suppose the truth is that without that anger and, frankly, that bravery this argument would have gone by default.

This is an interesting quote from the review.

I spent all yesterday reading the book and thought Helen was very restrained considering. Amazing how any level of righteous anger from women is alway too angry.

13th Rule of Misogyny: Angry women are crazy. Angry men have trouble expressing themselves.

@OvaHere

If the book has a flaw it is that Joyce is sometimes too angry and polemical. This is a book that needs to be read by those who think they might disagree with her far more than by those who already agree, so tone matters. But I suppose the truth is that without that anger and, frankly, that bravery this argument would have gone by default.

This is an interesting quote from the review.

I spent all yesterday reading the book and thought Helen was very restrained considering. Amazing how any level of righteous anger from women is alway too angry.

I’ve read a fair bit of it, but so far she’s been remarkably restrained! I shall be spending the rest of the weekend reading it all. Thanks to self isolation 🤣

@toffeebutterpopcorn

Too angry? I don’t think women are angry enough to be honest. Told to ‘be kind’, conditioned to be doormats...

I agree. It was a good article apart from the lame swipe at Helen.

I'm looking forward to my copy of the book arriving. I hope future generations of history students will be presented with gender ideology as an example of a near miss with regards to the absurdities that whole swathes of a population can be persuaded to believe.

archive version in case share token lapses:

archive.is/2hW0n

Am going to request it at my local library and see what happens.

What I realise from talking to men (good ones) about this, is zero conception of what it is to be in a woman's body, with its associated vulnerabilities. Also a bias to disbelieve experience anecdotally, which every woman has, in favour of "evidence". So the dominant sex will only agree that women should have the right to be heard, to speak, to have laws in our favour, with male agreement and that it is darn difficult to be heard. So the final paragraph does not surprise me - the author was on the fence, now he is off it. But what it is has taken to get him off it is concerted bravery, honesty, intellectual capactiy and the will to fight injustice. It has been very very eye opening.

Can't wait to read this book, Helen is a gifted writer.

I'm getting my copy tomorrow and I'm not leaving the sofa until I've read it all. (Except maybe to make a cup of tea and grab a chocolate biscuit!).

I'm very glad that DA has written this article despite the muscle-straining eye-roll I experienced at the "angry woman" trope and the idea that if only women expressed their excellent points nicely and calmly then they would be listened to. It's staggering naivety and ignorance rather than malice, I accept.

I'm also very glad that more prominent men are starting to wake up and get onside because they will not be targeted in the same way as women doing the same have been for years and years, and I fully expect that men's support will make a big difference to who listens and what gets done.

I am simultaneously furious that that is the case.

Obviously I'm delighted that more men are getting off the fence. And yet at the same time fucking annoyed that they were on it in the first place. And for soooo long.

Ordinary men in the street might be forgiven for not noticing, but journalists? No.

I am glad for the article, though. It's certainly a goal to convince more people.

The realisation of how fundamentally misogynistic even intelligent men who are capable of seeing things from all sides (Aaronovitch has moved from the left to something more right) leaves me in quiet despair. John Ronson, Louis Theroux: I'm never going to be able to be in the same room as them again.

I hope when the Hay Festival starts up again (Aaronovitch is usually there a lot, interviewing and commentating) women will take the opportunity to point this out to him.

@EveryoneElseDoes: "I'm also very glad that more prominent men are starting to wake up and get onside because they will not be targeted in the same way as women doing the same have been for years and years, and I fully expect that men's support will make a big difference to who listens and what gets done.

I am simultaneously furious that that is the case."

Yes! Just as I'm furious that my physical safety as a woman depends more upon men's socialisation and impulse control than upon my own decisions and actions. Especially when I'm simultaneously being instructed to believe that I'm a bad person for not wanting a male bodied person sharing my prison cell, on my women's rugby team, or representing me on a women-specific issue.

@Shedbuilder

The realisation of how fundamentally misogynistic even intelligent men who are capable of seeing things from all sides (Aaronovitch has moved from the left to something more right) leaves me in quiet despair. John Ronson, Louis Theroux: I'm never going to be able to be in the same room as them again.

I hope when the Hay Festival starts up again (Aaronovitch is usually there a lot, interviewing and commentating) women will take the opportunity to point this out to him.

I know what you mean, but I've found (in my experience) men are on the whole quite understanding of why we're upset (unless they're misogynistic wankers). It's actually women that have tried to shame other women in this debate.

I've not read the book yet but I'm enjoying the reviews, including this one. If we're going to win this we need people to get off the fence or change their minds so I'm not going to carp about that.
The lazy swipe at angry women though is disappointing, if commonplace. I'm sure Aaronovitch considers himself a thoughtful guy so maybe he could have a think about why that makes him so uncomfortable.

@badpuma

He did an article about the culture war a little while ago in which in was definitely dismissed as women being silly so it looks like the book has peaked him.

That's annoying, and a bit surprising to me. One of the earlier things I read on this issue was an article by him defending the right of wpuk and others to meet about this, and about the strong efforts to prevent them talking. It was in spring or summer 2018? He also talked about no -platforming if Julie bindel on question time (I'm pretty sure) about the same time. He knew the score then, with his free speech hat on, though he didn't pass his own opinion on the issue he was defending the right to discuss it.

I think professional opinion havers are not always that consistent! Hopefully he's properly understood now. Well done Helen.

David Aaronovitch has a wife and three daughters.

@OldTurtleNewShell

I'm reading the book now. It really is extraordinarily good.

Me too. DA talks about "intellectual clarity", which I think is spot on. Its also interesting the things that peaked him and worth taking note of in order to use these in discussion with other men. I`ve tended to find that women who havnt read up on the issues, tend to focus more on the safeguarding and plight of teens.

The lazy swipe at angry women though is disappointing, if commonplace.

What "lazy swipe at angry women"?

@Freespeecher

I normally disagree with David Aaronovitch but fair play to him here. Yesterday's article was about when he belatedly realised that Communist Cuba might not be a worker's utopia after all so, you know, he tends to get there in the end.

I disagree with him about the Iraq War which he supported. Strange bedfellows but needs must and all that.

@NecessaryScene

The lazy swipe at angry women though is disappointing, if commonplace.

What "lazy swipe at angry women"?

I'm referring to this: If the book has a flaw it is that Joyce is sometimes too angry and polemical. This is a book that needs to be read by those who think they might disagree with her far more than by those who already agree, so tone matters. I worded my post badly as DA was specifically referring to Joyce rather than women in general. But angry women do make people uncomfortable and I'm done with this 'we'd have listened to you sooner if only you'd been nicer' aka 'tone matters' excuse of an argument.

Plus on Twitter at any rate (not read the book yet) Helen Joyce is as rational and restrained as they come.

I’ve just read the comments, and the only “negative” posted comment was this:

Barnsey
22 MINUTES AGO
All progressive people wish Laurel well in the Olympics, a true pioneer

@BadGherkin

I’ve just read the comments, and the only “negative” posted comment was this:

Barnsey
22 MINUTES AGO
All progressive people wish Laurel well in the Olympics, a true pioneer

Pioneer? Surely sarcasm?!!

As ever JosephineMarch is spot on in the comments (& MUST be here? 👋)

Must read this book.
Good article by David Aaronovitch. Interesting comments too- always love to see Josephine March's comments; wonder if she's on here??