Feminist Guardian columnist Moira Donegan reflects on the Temperance Movement, and entertains the idea of denying men (but not women) the right to drink, claiming it's useful as a "provocation, or a thought experiment."

mtcapri · 2020-01-04T18:46:10+00:00

A key point she makes in support of her sexist proposal is this:

But the fact remains that, although alcoholism and binge drinking are on the rise among women, they are still not nearly as prevalent among women as they are among men – nor are they linked to an attendant increase in violence by women. In short, it is by and large men, not women, who get violent when they are drunk.

I'm pretty sure that women are, in fact, more likely to get violent when they're drunk, but I don't have research immediately on hand to prove it.

Regardless, Donegan is doing something here that I see feminists do a lot, which is coyly propose we think about instituting a sexist law, while simultaneously denying they're arguing we actually institute it. Other feminists have made similar proposals about curfews for men, for example. This is what I like to call "tongue-in-cheek" sexism, wherein the author is saying, "of course we shouldn't do this, but, like...what would happen if we did (and maybe, just maybe we should)?"

This sort of writing is sexist and despicable, and I would argue is actually intended to get society to open up to concrete sexist policies. We can already see the success of feminist efforts to increase women's privilege in the criminal justice system happening in the U.K., where they've closed women's prisons across the country and implemented policies wherein women are only sent to jail for the most serious offenses. This is literally on paper and in practice a misandrist justice machine, and it is happening right before our eyes in the U.K.

So, articles like these may be playing it safe by including the disclaimer that "of course we're not suggesting this actually be done," but when the majority of feminists in positions of power seem perfectly fine with blatant sexist discrimination when it favors women, I see no reason to take said disclaimers as genuine.

I wish papers like the Guardian would stop pandering to these misandrist bigots and instead start calling them out for being so and feminism in general for fostering them.

Strikester101 · 2020-01-04T19:47:36+00:00

...Here's a fantastic idea for feminists like her.

Why don't you raise your sons properly and teach them to not be violent misogynists, instead of telling random men to take responsibility for them?

Imagine a group that points out the discrimination and violence they face at the hands of another group, only to realize they are the majority of caretakers of them.

EDIT: Like a lot of them pretend as if they aren't mothers who outright protect their sons' horrible actions. Or that really religious mother who thinks her child can do no wrong. They have more role in their development (they even emphasize this during family court), yet they want some randos to take responsibility for her child.

Tmomp · 2020-01-05T00:49:12+00:00

Some men commit crimes when drunk so other innocent men should be deprived of their freedom?

Blatant discrimination and sexism. Substitute any other group for men: women, blacks, etc.

Dunkolunko · 2020-01-05T01:53:29+00:00

But wouldn't the reverse make more sense? After all, only women lose the ability to give consent when drunk, rates of rape would go down about 98%!

flusurvivor · 2020-01-07T00:59:17+00:00

I can't help but see classism and maybe sexism when I see modern teetotalers. Or, in this case, people who are JAQing off about prohibition.

The drinkers that cause "problems" are rarely people who had one too many at brunch before their driver/an uber took them home at 1PM. They aren't the manager with a corner office who showed up 2 hours late. The drunk people who cause problems are driving a forklift, hanging out on the street, or sitting in the cheap seats in an arena.

An upper (or upper-middle) class woman (or maybe man) is unlikely to ever overtly show up as a problem drinker. They probably won't get arrested. They probably won't puke in a gutter walking home from a dive bar. They probably won't lose their paycheck to booze or fail to perform at work and get fired. They probably won't have a neighbor get fed up and call the police when they get sick of the shouting match they can hear out the kitchen window.

You know who drinks too much? You know who is violent? You know who does both? Everyone.

But some people are much more likely to suffer from prohibition than others. And advocates and detractors alike know who those people are.

LeftNatTay · 2020-01-21T18:05:29+00:00

Does she not remember what Prohibition did to alcoholism and crime in the 1920s and early 1930s?

QueenNayru · 2020-01-05T01:19:04+00:00

How about fuck anyone that would tell me what I can and cannot drink! Brb gonna buy a gun so any idiot that tries to reclaim any anything can burn In hell

Comments