It’s very interesting to hear about the prejudices you face as a female performer, which seem remarkably persistent.

Women? They speak of the baby, they want a hug, and they want to be left alone at the same time…Because they’re all irrational.

Yes, the idea that women are irrational seems to be at the heart of many of these linguistic arguments, even the ones that claim to be sympathetic to women (hey! rationality’s not all that! let’s celebrate our difference! and so on). It reminds me a bit of the puffing geezers who love to state that terrorists are “irrational”, about which there is tediously much on unspeak.net. (And thank you very much for the kind words about that book.)

claiming that the language each sex uses is somehow indicative of their inherent ‘natures’ is not only backwards, its frankly dangerous.

Yes, it is dangerous. And yet to point this out is often to be accused of “having an agenda”, letting politics get in the way of some pure, disinterested science. Cameron points out early in her book the self-congratulatory tone of her adversaries, who are always primping themselves on their courage to come out and Speak Truth even if it is not “politically correct”.

(At the back of my mind during this whole exchange has been the analogous argument about black people and IQ scores — most recently because of Watson’s remarks — in which the “difference position” is demonstrably based on no respectable data at all.)

The response to this kind of thing, I think, is to say: sure, this kind of thing is potentially dangerous, but in saying so we do not seek to obstruct or “censor” real science, if it is real science. The burden of proof is on those making the claims of difference. If they come up short, it is not for want of trying. (And why, we might very well ask, do they persist in trying so hard?)

“She’s going to be shit.”

Thankfully, I do change their minds on occasion…

However, there exists an assumption that female poets will harp on about sunshine and lollipops, or occasional rants about their bastard exes, while the ‘important’ ’serious’ ‘political’ poetry is best left to those clever men. Neither is true: in fact, the backlash against PC means that many a young whippet of a poet with an assymetrical hair cut and his boxers pulled up over his low cut jeans, will jump on a stage, ask how many feminists it takes to change a lightbulb, rhyme ‘crime’ with ‘palestine’ a few times, then finish with a poem that he claims is ‘postmodern’ that has the title ‘I Miss That Bitch.’ Or something. Wait: I’ve used the word ‘the’ many times here - does that make me a dungaree-wearing, bra-burning, ball-breaker? According to many people, by doing what I do, it does. By virtue of having an opinion and ‘daring’ to write and perform poetry, I either need ‘taking down a peg or two’ or am trying to be a man. Because the men? They eat of the beef, they like the boobies, and they love the attention. Women? They speak of the baby, they want a hug, and they want to be left alone at the same time…Because they’re all irrational.

Anyway, I digress. The point is - and I have read neither book, nor all of this thread - but the point is, I think, that claiming that the language each sex uses is somehow indicative of their inherent ‘natures’ is not only backwards, its frankly dangerous. It’s certainly dangerous for my bank balance…

Im always impatient of recourse to human ‘nature’ to explain (or, as is more often the case) justify our actions. ‘Experts’ will deal in majorities: ‘the majority of women use purple prose and flowery metaphors, which shows their inherent flowery natures.’ Instead of dealing in majorities, how about explaining why everyone does NOT conform to these…what?? Ideals? At the risk of sounding like a post-suicidal goth kid who never grew up, “natural” is a construct. Actually, i’d never have said that when I was a suicidal goth kid. I’d have said, “define NORMAL you big bully.” Aye.

Thea wrote that the author of the book must have a ‘political agenda’ behind writing the book. Good. If only there were more people trying to save plain language from the acid bath. The failure of feminism as a political project has been due, at least in part, to the timidity women feel they must exude. “I’m not a feminist, but..” seems to be as far as most women of my age (25) will go. And don’t even get me started on the ‘liberation’ issue: ‘liberation’ is not a ‘handbag-gene’,laxatives, a corset (”because I want to!”) and downing pints of Guinness quicker than your boyfriend. Though, of course, boys can be anorexics too now. Great. Exactly the kind of ‘equality’ we were after.

Good God, what a rant. How dare I?

Anyway - i only came on here to find a way to thank Steven for Unspeak, which I read a month ago after being put on to it by my dissertation tutor, whose study area is Orwell’s political thought. So: Unspeak was excellent. I can no longer read a newspaper without a highlighter handy. Ta.

But, at the end of this day, “equality” is just too much like “free speech” - another universal that does not exist, which we do not actually want, and which is the muse for so much drivel, and yet which we somehow end up defending because really bad people benefit nefariously from our differences, those things we enjoy, the little things, and really bad people stiffle what liberties we would like to exercise. We rally under compromised banners.

And this is why I would like to separate justice from equality. Not decisively, but moment to moment.

A phrase of the form “Not X but Y” indicates a contrast between X and Y.

vs.

decisively

Yes, a contrast. Not decisively.

Suppose an inequality in ability between two groups were not in fact contrived but shown irrefutably to exist, and the two groups were therefore treated inequably by society as a result. What then would your Justice say?

It depends, doesn’t it? What in your world of equality is being equalised? What is the homogenisation that is taking place? Does not your ideal of “equality” risk denying or seeking to erase this very difference (what you term an “inequality in ability”)? Did I not provide my answer to these already: justice is justice proper when it spots and targets the moment of contrivance rather than teetering on the scales of “equality”. Oh, but you object to how I use the word “contrivance”, right?

Please imagine that I have here sarcastically ended this thread.

Equality is not, as you put I put it, contrasted … so decisively with justice

Well, you put it like this:

an ideal would not be “equality” but “justice”.

A phrase of the form “Not X but Y” indicates a contrast between X and Y.

As for your elaboration of what justice is: it appears to be sort of a contrivance-rectifying device that can “in each case, decide uniquely what is right and what is wrong” — based on what, you are not seeing fit to explain, beyond that it is “not necessarily” based on equality. How, then, does it work? And why is contrivance its focus? Some contrivances are excellent. Man is nothing if not homo conturbans.

Suppose an inequality in ability between two groups were not in fact contrived but shown irrefutably to exist, and the two groups were therefore treated inequably by society as a result. What then would your Justice say? “No contrivance here; equality’s not my job; move along”? Hooray, indeed. Please imagine that I have here sarcastically provided Google Book Search links to Hobbes, Mill, Paine, Rawls etc etc etc.