I honestly think a lot of female MPs and journalists see women on Mumsnet as the plebs who'll get their hands dirty with all the campaigns they don't want to sully themselves with, then they'll breeze in afterwards and say "see? There was never any problem"
Members of the "waffling pretentiously about Judith Butler" class see risking being called certain names as beneath them. There are the lower orders who can deal with than.
Feminism's cannon fodder, who can be denigrated for being so uncouth as to fight when they could have stayed home and postured
We can all waffle and equivocate about sex and gender. It's not some major gift, revealing of one's greater intellect, capacity for empathy and understanding of nuance. It's a Boris Johnson-level life skill.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whenever people declare there needs to be "less heat, more light" in debates on sex and gender I think of JK Rowling's very carefully worded essay and the response she got. How much more "light" are women meant to offer? I suspect the only acceptable "light" is total silence.
Rowling is now viewed in the context, not of what she wrote, but the response she received. Like an abuse victim might be viewed as being damaged, troubled, in a "volatile" relationship - tainted by what is done to her, so ultimately complicit in it.
That aura of "well, she must have done something" - women know that however reasonable, rational, careful, compassionate they are, they cannot control other people's responses so are always at risk of becoming someone "involved" in a "heated" debate, "lacking in nuance"