Not blokes (Leemage/Corbis via Getty Images)
Of all the footnotes to Kathleen Stock’s recent trip to Oxford, perhaps the most unedifying was the sight of me and my friends — ranging in age from 30 to 70 — exclaiming “Phwoar!” in private chat groups. But as Joe Orton memorably said, “anything that is worth doing is worth doing in public”, so I came straight out with it in The Sun, calling her “the love child of Greta Garbo and Gandhi”. We knew she was clever, but walking to the Union, wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses and surrounded by security detail, she looked astonishingly cool — “Reservoir Terfs”, as one meme put it.
But enough of my mash note. Dr Stock is such a fascinating figure because she represents everything about being a lesbian that men — no matter how much they stamp their massive feet in their stripper heels — can never possess. It’s nothing to do with pornography and lipstick, the twin pillars of this strange new faith; she highlights the profound emptiness of their performative fantasy of femininity.
Where once society was defined by Penis Envy, Lesbian Envy is today’s driving force. So much performative thespian-lesbianism has taken place in popular culture that you’d think every woman was at it, but if we regard the history of lesbianism, most of it has gone on in secret.
Many lesbians point out that, historically, there has been little overlap between the problems and pleasures of lesbians and homosexual men. Men are reviled for it in the Scriptures and have had laws passed against them, while women are more likely to simply be ignored, culminating in Queen’s Victoria’s refusal to believe that lesbianism existed. Yet, at the same time, homosexuals had great power in the Greek and Roman empires, while lesbians certainly didn’t. While Oscar Wilde could be a tragic martyr to The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Name, lesbianism has long been easy to reduce to titillation and entertainment. If you admire the female form, the onanist logic goes, why not admire it times-two? And, unlike with straight porn, there won’t be any well-hung male hanging around to make you feel bad about yourself.
This can lead a certain type of man to feel that, even for them, lesbianism can be a little something on the side, even something which adds to their own appeal. In the Nineties, I had an idea for a Bateman-style cartoon that portrayed a man being shunned by his contemporaries: The Man Whose Wife Wouldn’t Do Girl-On-Girl. It was around this time, during my second marriage, when I fell for a woman and my second husband gave me “permission” to see her, even doing a humorous routine for his friends: “Lesbians make such fascinating wives!” He wasn’t laughing when I left him for her, whereupon I uttered the classic line to the Evening Standard gossip column: “Miss Raven and I are not lesbians — we are simply in love.”
I wasn’t being super-straight or shy in saying this. Rather, I was aware that being the capricious creature I am, I didn’t feel morally worthy of bearing a name which brave women had suffered for, simply because I was following a whim which I was pretty sure I wouldn’t be indulging in for long. (Sure enough, I soon ran off with her brother.) Today, by contrast, straight people stampede to call themselves queer, so prevalent is the idea that “heterosexual equals bad” and “homosexual equals good”. There are so many young women holding up their baby boys on social media and pronouncing them “Gay!” that I’ve often thought that if a certain sort of young woman could be guaranteed to have a gay baby, the moribund birthrate of the West would shoot up.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“both had surveyed the men of the entire planet and found them inadequate”
why the anti-man bashing, Julie ? Did these two women try to be heterosexual, and had to “convert” to lesbianism by “default” ? i thought not.
Please don’t mix your issues. We definitely agree with your point about lesbianism being “reclaimed” by trans, but you don’t need to score a few points against normal males, who are as bemused as you are by the current fads.
Seriously. It is upper class white women who are mostly driving this madness. Why don’t you complain about them. Heterosexual men only care about this nonsense when it impacts their children.
It’s typical.
Democrats are 70% in favour of this nonsense, if I recall, and within that group college educated upper class white women, I suspect, are 80-90% in support.
Ironically, the likes of this author and those women have lots in common.
In particular, a very common supremacist attitude that’s not backed up by anything substantial – if not for “heterosexual men” they wouldn’t have electricity, technology, infrastructure, basic food supplies, buildings….
Surely nobody “wants” to be a lesbian. A person either is one or isn’t one.
If you are, then you are and no amount of wishing will change it.
If you’re not, then you are not, and no amount of wishing will make it happen.
A bit like being a woman, then.
There is no such thing. These are behaviors. Developmental disorders.
Sigmund Freud’s “polymorphous perversity” as a developmental stage is now rather out of date. He neglected to investigate the cultural ubiquity of homosexuality throughout history.
Sigmund Freud’s “polymorphous perversity” as a developmental stage is now rather out of date. He neglected to investigate the cultural ubiquity of homosexuality throughout history.
Not sure girls can’t enjoy playful sex with other girls without being exclusively lesbian
Perhaps bi-sexual?
Perhaps bi-sexual?
Well said. I’ve often thought it might be nice to be bi-sexual. As Woody Allen said “you stand a better chance of a date on a Saturday night”.
A bit like being a woman, then.
There is no such thing. These are behaviors. Developmental disorders.
Not sure girls can’t enjoy playful sex with other girls without being exclusively lesbian
Well said. I’ve often thought it might be nice to be bi-sexual. As Woody Allen said “you stand a better chance of a date on a Saturday night”.
They wouldn’t exist. Its modern pagan narcissism. When the person is ruled by the will , the appetitive, as Plato saw it, and not by reason, one is dealing with narcissistic hedonism. The west is a cult predicated upon this. And of course it cannot be reasoned with.
I’ll not bother to waste any strength on this. I know what I believe and it’s not that.
Julie Birchill’s origins are working class.
‘if not for “heterosexual men” they wouldn’t have electricity, technology, infrastructure, basic food supplies, buildings….’
… because heterosexual men have, historically, banned women from positions in which they could produce such ‘goods’, and from the education that would allow them to research or design them. This began to change in the 20th century but girls’ education and cultural expectations of women have only begun to catch up and are constantly being suppressed, overtly in Islamic countries but more insidiously in supposedly egalitarian cultures. The new line of attack, as typified by Samir Iker, is the dismissal of women or, worse, as Julie Burchill points out, attempts to erase completely what a ‘woman’ is, so as to allow their former territory to be colonised by – men.
Well said.
Could not produce food supplies? Nonsense. However, given the rest, maybe women would not have trashed the planet.
Well said.
Could not produce food supplies? Nonsense. However, given the rest, maybe women would not have trashed the planet.
You “suspect” that college educated, upper class, white women are 80-90% in support of nonsense. Your suspicions don’t make it so.
Surely nobody “wants” to be a lesbian. A person either is one or isn’t one.
If you are, then you are and no amount of wishing will change it.
If you’re not, then you are not, and no amount of wishing will make it happen.
They wouldn’t exist. Its modern pagan narcissism. When the person is ruled by the will , the appetitive, as Plato saw it, and not by reason, one is dealing with narcissistic hedonism. The west is a cult predicated upon this. And of course it cannot be reasoned with.
I’ll not bother to waste any strength on this. I know what I believe and it’s not that.
Julie Birchill’s origins are working class.
‘if not for “heterosexual men” they wouldn’t have electricity, technology, infrastructure, basic food supplies, buildings….’
… because heterosexual men have, historically, banned women from positions in which they could produce such ‘goods’, and from the education that would allow them to research or design them. This began to change in the 20th century but girls’ education and cultural expectations of women have only begun to catch up and are constantly being suppressed, overtly in Islamic countries but more insidiously in supposedly egalitarian cultures. The new line of attack, as typified by Samir Iker, is the dismissal of women or, worse, as Julie Burchill points out, attempts to erase completely what a ‘woman’ is, so as to allow their former territory to be colonised by – men.
You “suspect” that college educated, upper class, white women are 80-90% in support of nonsense. Your suspicions don’t make it so.
Most upper class white woman are about as exciting a prospect to men as lesbians… Except the hunting and horsey ones…
It’s typical.
Democrats are 70% in favour of this nonsense, if I recall, and within that group college educated upper class white women, I suspect, are 80-90% in support.
Ironically, the likes of this author and those women have lots in common.
In particular, a very common supremacist attitude that’s not backed up by anything substantial – if not for “heterosexual men” they wouldn’t have electricity, technology, infrastructure, basic food supplies, buildings….
Most upper class white woman are about as exciting a prospect to men as lesbians… Except the hunting and horsey ones…
*as bemused as you are
sorry
Don’t be sorry. You can also edit the original comment yourself (*and add a note about the edit or emendation if you like).
My mistake, Aldo Maccione. I see this is sometimes not the case, lately anyway.
My mistake, Aldo Maccione. I see this is sometimes not the case, lately anyway.
Don’t be sorry. You can also edit the original comment yourself (*and add a note about the edit or emendation if you like).
I think you should bear in mind that writing things to deliberately wind people up has been core to Julie’s method since she was seventeen and writing in the NME.
I agree, I notice the method, but it’s cheap and tired. If she wants to advance her point of view, she needs to stop gratuitously and pointlessly antagonizing her fortuitous allies.
Choose your fights and all that.
But would anyone be commenting as much as they do on her articles without the “wind up” element”?
Of course it’s deliberate, and consistent in her writing. The fulminations they provoke are themselves quite amusing/annoying, depending on preference.
It’s a style which works for her – she gets published, so i’d say she chooses her fights with precision.
She isn’t advancing a “point of view”, at least not on this occasion. She is just giving her reaction to the world she sees sround her. And judging by the po-faced responses here then my sympathies are with her.
When did men become so insecure, that they couldn’t take some ribbing? No wonder they can’t find girlfriends.
She’s spent 40 or 50 years blaming ‘men’ for …. well, everything. Not specific wrongdoers, mind, because she’s a collectivist. If one man does wrong, all 4 billion must pay!
Women, on the other hand, are in Julie’s world, devoid of agency, are constant and universal victims who should be exempt from the consequences of any bad actions or poor choices. She’s a feminist caricature.
We know her of old, and each new article she writes will inevitably ruin any salient point she has by her insanity rearing its head somewhere.
I do not recognise her in your description. Are you confusing her with someone else?
Doesn’t know her Bindel from her Burchill!
That’s what I wondered.
That’s what I wondered.
Doesn’t know her Bindel from her Burchill!
I do not recognise her in your description. Are you confusing her with someone else?
Firstly, she isn’t “ribbing”. She is just indulging in her usual invective.
If you weren’t so humour less, you might have been able to tell the difference.
Still, we can allow for your deficiencies.
Secondly, you are right. Neither me nor any of my male friends can find girlfriends. Slogging hard to pay for our families, spending whatever time’s left on my young girl – teaching, school runs, taking her to those parks and museums and movies meant for 3 year olds, because who else will? – doesn’t really help much in that regard.
But the sheer ingratitude and delusion, as you safely whine about “men” while we built and maintain the modern world that lets you pretend to be “strong women”….that’s fine, too, can’t expect anything better.
But remember the small kid at home, the reason me and fathers like me are running ourselves into the ground?
When a tiny number of awful men try to hurt her, barge into girl’s sports, or their toilets, or expose themselves…
if left to us, the problem would end very soon.
But no, because these jokers are legally protected, and also have the support of “progressive” media, educators, governments.
That’s you lot – upper class women – who are responsible. Your delusions of “equality”, your resentment of biology….
And even now, you are incapable of taking responsibility, facing reality, and continue to whine about “men” and “misogyny” – as this article shows.
That’s why we are “po faced”. Nothing to do with your imaginary “ribbing”.
I wonder what I, or Julie, have done to warrant your over the top reaction, Samir.
Don’t be so “insecure”, dear.
And don’t worry about others reactions. Just a hint or you, or Julie – start taking responsibility for what you have done, or for your own lives, instead of droning on about “men”. It might be one small step for men-kind, but a giant one for self proclaimed perma-victims.
You really need to calm down.
Just wondering if you could find a way of saying what you want to without being patronising? Because your stye kind of just confirms feminists in their opinions rather than contributing to altering the behaviour you find so difficult.
But on the contrary as I mentiond above you sound like the victim.
You really need to calm down.
Just wondering if you could find a way of saying what you want to without being patronising? Because your stye kind of just confirms feminists in their opinions rather than contributing to altering the behaviour you find so difficult.
But on the contrary as I mentiond above you sound like the victim.
Don’t be so “insecure”, dear.
And don’t worry about others reactions. Just a hint or you, or Julie – start taking responsibility for what you have done, or for your own lives, instead of droning on about “men”. It might be one small step for men-kind, but a giant one for self proclaimed perma-victims.
Well said Samir.
It really wasn’t very well said.
It really wasn’t very well said.
Samir nails it. Political Lesbianism amounts to a delusional luxury belief system that rests on the hard work and suffering of those it disdains or ignores. Maybe someday there will be a life affirming Sappho movement but until then we will be forced to indulge this toxic nihilism.
Julie Birchill’s origins are working class. As a writer she sets out to annoy and offend: why I stopped reading her stuff in The Observer (or maybe it was The Guardian) decades ago. Much better to ignore her.
Oh dear, you sure sound victimized. Not much joy in your life?
I wonder what I, or Julie, have done to warrant your over the top reaction, Samir.
Well said Samir.
Samir nails it. Political Lesbianism amounts to a delusional luxury belief system that rests on the hard work and suffering of those it disdains or ignores. Maybe someday there will be a life affirming Sappho movement but until then we will be forced to indulge this toxic nihilism.
Julie Birchill’s origins are working class. As a writer she sets out to annoy and offend: why I stopped reading her stuff in The Observer (or maybe it was The Guardian) decades ago. Much better to ignore her.
Oh dear, you sure sound victimized. Not much joy in your life?
“Ribbing”? It’s been WAR since the “like a fish needs a bicycle“ posture and when it comes to the brutish exercise of power, women lose. Smart, rich, white girls will do ok. The average woman, not so much.
Exactly. Being able to laugh at oneself is a fine thing, essential, in fact.
She’s spent 40 or 50 years blaming ‘men’ for …. well, everything. Not specific wrongdoers, mind, because she’s a collectivist. If one man does wrong, all 4 billion must pay!
Women, on the other hand, are in Julie’s world, devoid of agency, are constant and universal victims who should be exempt from the consequences of any bad actions or poor choices. She’s a feminist caricature.
We know her of old, and each new article she writes will inevitably ruin any salient point she has by her insanity rearing its head somewhere.
Firstly, she isn’t “ribbing”. She is just indulging in her usual invective.
If you weren’t so humour less, you might have been able to tell the difference.
Still, we can allow for your deficiencies.
Secondly, you are right. Neither me nor any of my male friends can find girlfriends. Slogging hard to pay for our families, spending whatever time’s left on my young girl – teaching, school runs, taking her to those parks and museums and movies meant for 3 year olds, because who else will? – doesn’t really help much in that regard.
But the sheer ingratitude and delusion, as you safely whine about “men” while we built and maintain the modern world that lets you pretend to be “strong women”….that’s fine, too, can’t expect anything better.
But remember the small kid at home, the reason me and fathers like me are running ourselves into the ground?
When a tiny number of awful men try to hurt her, barge into girl’s sports, or their toilets, or expose themselves…
if left to us, the problem would end very soon.
But no, because these jokers are legally protected, and also have the support of “progressive” media, educators, governments.
That’s you lot – upper class women – who are responsible. Your delusions of “equality”, your resentment of biology….
And even now, you are incapable of taking responsibility, facing reality, and continue to whine about “men” and “misogyny” – as this article shows.
That’s why we are “po faced”. Nothing to do with your imaginary “ribbing”.
“Ribbing”? It’s been WAR since the “like a fish needs a bicycle“ posture and when it comes to the brutish exercise of power, women lose. Smart, rich, white girls will do ok. The average woman, not so much.
Exactly. Being able to laugh at oneself is a fine thing, essential, in fact.
Birchill also specialises in in trying to offend people. If you take offence, she’s won (from her point of view).
But would anyone be commenting as much as they do on her articles without the “wind up” element”?
Of course it’s deliberate, and consistent in her writing. The fulminations they provoke are themselves quite amusing/annoying, depending on preference.
It’s a style which works for her – she gets published, so i’d say she chooses her fights with precision.
She isn’t advancing a “point of view”, at least not on this occasion. She is just giving her reaction to the world she sees sround her. And judging by the po-faced responses here then my sympathies are with her.
When did men become so insecure, that they couldn’t take some ribbing? No wonder they can’t find girlfriends.
Birchill also specialises in in trying to offend people. If you take offence, she’s won (from her point of view).
And she’s good at it: She winds up all the right people.
Indeed. Classic NME modus operandi. Snide, cowardly backstabbing and building bands up only to knock them down for the sake of it. Their journalists rarely if ever had the courage to criticise bands directly in interviews though – they’d fawn over them and then give them a kicking in reviews. Sounds was always a far superior publication and I for one was delighted when the NME finally bit the dust.
One of the first things she ever wrote for the NME, maybe the very first, was a lesbian love note to Patti Smith in the form of a live show review. It was magnificent.
I agree, I notice the method, but it’s cheap and tired. If she wants to advance her point of view, she needs to stop gratuitously and pointlessly antagonizing her fortuitous allies.
Choose your fights and all that.
And she’s good at it: She winds up all the right people.
Indeed. Classic NME modus operandi. Snide, cowardly backstabbing and building bands up only to knock them down for the sake of it. Their journalists rarely if ever had the courage to criticise bands directly in interviews though – they’d fawn over them and then give them a kicking in reviews. Sounds was always a far superior publication and I for one was delighted when the NME finally bit the dust.
One of the first things she ever wrote for the NME, maybe the very first, was a lesbian love note to Patti Smith in the form of a live show review. It was magnificent.
Truth is lots of girls will kiss another girl to tantalise a man .Even Julie did this big time to capture her current husband , who is her former girlfriend’s brother .
Seriously. It is upper class white women who are mostly driving this madness. Why don’t you complain about them. Heterosexual men only care about this nonsense when it impacts their children.
*as bemused as you are
sorry
I think you should bear in mind that writing things to deliberately wind people up has been core to Julie’s method since she was seventeen and writing in the NME.
Truth is lots of girls will kiss another girl to tantalise a man .Even Julie did this big time to capture her current husband , who is her former girlfriend’s brother .
“both had surveyed the men of the entire planet and found them inadequate”
why the anti-man bashing, Julie ? Did these two women try to be heterosexual, and had to “convert” to lesbianism by “default” ? i thought not.
Please don’t mix your issues. We definitely agree with your point about lesbianism being “reclaimed” by trans, but you don’t need to score a few points against normal males, who are as bemused as you are by the current fads.
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
It’s true. No matter how hard I try, I can’t quite make it.
They ain’t buying what we’re selling
Hard for me to understand why most autogynephilic men who proceed to the transition phase still still want female partners, but it’s apparently so. (If they want to usurp the female experience of sex, wouldn’t a male partner make more sense?) The problem is … most straight women lose sexual interest in a man when he lets them know that his chief erotic interest is himself. These newly minted women seem to understand the problem, but seem to think that lesbians will be different in that respect, but I don’t really think they are. Some trans-identified men do find their lesbians, but many are frustrated getting past what they call “the cotton ceiling.” So they proceed to instruct lesbians that they owe trans women a chance to make it in their beds. Can’t see the logic of that either, but I do see the solution. If “trans women are women” and trans women are lesbians, then they should be happy to sleep with each other.
OMG my head is spinning! I suspect that transwomen who have transitioned would ideally like to have sex with straight men, but I also suspect that ‘aint gonna happen unless the straight man doesn’t know. That can happen. April Ashley was the first man to fully transition, and I met a man who had sex with her and didn’t know and couldn’t tell the difference. I also knew a man who liked men dressed as women who hadn’t transitioned. That’s the extent of my experience, but it sure seems that men are wierd.
OMG my head is spinning! I suspect that transwomen who have transitioned would ideally like to have sex with straight men, but I also suspect that ‘aint gonna happen unless the straight man doesn’t know. That can happen. April Ashley was the first man to fully transition, and I met a man who had sex with her and didn’t know and couldn’t tell the difference. I also knew a man who liked men dressed as women who hadn’t transitioned. That’s the extent of my experience, but it sure seems that men are wierd.
They ain’t buying what we’re selling
Hard for me to understand why most autogynephilic men who proceed to the transition phase still still want female partners, but it’s apparently so. (If they want to usurp the female experience of sex, wouldn’t a male partner make more sense?) The problem is … most straight women lose sexual interest in a man when he lets them know that his chief erotic interest is himself. These newly minted women seem to understand the problem, but seem to think that lesbians will be different in that respect, but I don’t really think they are. Some trans-identified men do find their lesbians, but many are frustrated getting past what they call “the cotton ceiling.” So they proceed to instruct lesbians that they owe trans women a chance to make it in their beds. Can’t see the logic of that either, but I do see the solution. If “trans women are women” and trans women are lesbians, then they should be happy to sleep with each other.
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
It’s true. No matter how hard I try, I can’t quite make it.
Of course men can be lesbians … And kangaroos. Or wildebeest. You haven’t been paying attention.
I remember one of my old employers offered employees the option to get Macs.
Obviously a fair few opted for the slick looking MacBook instead of boring laptops.
And then promptly asked IT to install a Windows partition (if I recall the term correctly) .
For some reason, reminded of those folk when I read a out “lesbian” trans “women”
You make no sense, Samir.
You make no sense, Samir.
I remember one of my old employers offered employees the option to get Macs.
Obviously a fair few opted for the slick looking MacBook instead of boring laptops.
And then promptly asked IT to install a Windows partition (if I recall the term correctly) .
For some reason, reminded of those folk when I read a out “lesbian” trans “women”
Of course men can be lesbians … And kangaroos. Or wildebeest. You haven’t been paying attention.
Great piece! Entirely appropriate anger against heterosexual men who diminish or fetishize lesbian love and sex, and against all the gay men who have abandoned their support for lesbians in favor of a trans ideology that diminishes all women by refusing to acknowledge the difference between trans and biological women. The latter is a particularly bitter and egregious betrayal, and represents an extraordinary spasm of patriarchal behavior that needs to be called out. Respect!
Your reply is indeed interesting
Not exactly convincing, but the nonetheless interesting.
Well said.
Your reply is indeed interesting
Not exactly convincing, but the nonetheless interesting.
Well said.
Great piece! Entirely appropriate anger against heterosexual men who diminish or fetishize lesbian love and sex, and against all the gay men who have abandoned their support for lesbians in favor of a trans ideology that diminishes all women by refusing to acknowledge the difference between trans and biological women. The latter is a particularly bitter and egregious betrayal, and represents an extraordinary spasm of patriarchal behavior that needs to be called out. Respect!
Perhaps Doctor Stock also highlights the profound emptiness of Julie Burchill’s performative fantasy of masculinity.
Perhaps Doctor Stock also highlights the profound emptiness of Julie Burchill’s performative fantasy of masculinity.
Why , Julie , do so many lesbians adopt butch / femme roles in their coupledom ? Is it that they feel they need to ape traditional heterosexual role models, whereby the Butch one becomes an ersatz bloke and the other is his lady wife ?
Not necessarily, I am pretty butch and I am hetereosexual.
Pretty butch ! Best type of butch to be , especially for a heterosexual female .Lots of gym bunnies end up pretty butch , it’s quite usual these days .
Perhaps Nikki is pretty and butch.
That’s what I meant
That’s what I meant
Perhaps Nikki is pretty and butch.
The exception that proves the rule?
Pretty butch ! Best type of butch to be , especially for a heterosexual female .Lots of gym bunnies end up pretty butch , it’s quite usual these days .
The exception that proves the rule?
Weird, I don’t know any lesbian couples that conform to the dynamic you describe and I know quite a few.
And if they seem like they do, is it just through the eyes of an outsider, who thinks short hair and button shirts = male and long hair and lipstick= female?
You’re also putting forth quite a reductive view of hetero relationships. I don’t think that these days we can assume that traditional roles are adhered to, or that “male” responsibilities always sit with the man or vice versa.
Well the Butch / Femme thing was referenced by Julie Bindel on here in an article in which she described how she came out , and she spoke approvingly as being part of her own lesbian experience . I thought it sounded a bit old fashioned.
Masculinity as opposed to femininity is still a part of most heterosexual pairings ,and more or less define them . You seem a bit defensive about the lesbian need to simulate such ‘marriages’
Perhaps because ‘butch’ lesbians don’t reject their sex, but the gender role that society deems must go with it? Many homosexual men make the same distinction and would be happy being ‘feminine’ homosexual men.
Society makes that so difficult that many impressionable children believe ‘transitioning’ and ‘becoming’ members of the opposite sex would make them more acceptable than failing to conform to the prescribed gender roles. If they do go down the hormonal/surgical ‘sex change’ route, though, some changes are irreversible but the ‘change’ is never cell deep.
Agree , but why don’t you see more feminine pairs of lesbians , or ‘butch’ pairs of lesbians . It’s as though they unconsciously accept masculine / feminine as defining coupledom.
Good point.
Good point.
What?!
Agree , but why don’t you see more feminine pairs of lesbians , or ‘butch’ pairs of lesbians . It’s as though they unconsciously accept masculine / feminine as defining coupledom.
What?!
What?!
Perhaps because ‘butch’ lesbians don’t reject their sex, but the gender role that society deems must go with it? Many homosexual men make the same distinction and would be happy being ‘feminine’ homosexual men.
Society makes that so difficult that many impressionable children believe ‘transitioning’ and ‘becoming’ members of the opposite sex would make them more acceptable than failing to conform to the prescribed gender roles. If they do go down the hormonal/surgical ‘sex change’ route, though, some changes are irreversible but the ‘change’ is never cell deep.
What?!
“In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking but heaven knows, now anything goes”
Well the Butch / Femme thing was referenced by Julie Bindel on here in an article in which she described how she came out , and she spoke approvingly as being part of her own lesbian experience . I thought it sounded a bit old fashioned.
Masculinity as opposed to femininity is still a part of most heterosexual pairings ,and more or less define them . You seem a bit defensive about the lesbian need to simulate such ‘marriages’
“In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking but heaven knows, now anything goes”
The irony is they seem to be the ones who hate men, yet want to be like them. The same goes for men who hate women but want to be one.Perhaps it’s the old thing of you hate what you desire.
Not necessarily, I am pretty butch and I am hetereosexual.
Weird, I don’t know any lesbian couples that conform to the dynamic you describe and I know quite a few.
And if they seem like they do, is it just through the eyes of an outsider, who thinks short hair and button shirts = male and long hair and lipstick= female?
You’re also putting forth quite a reductive view of hetero relationships. I don’t think that these days we can assume that traditional roles are adhered to, or that “male” responsibilities always sit with the man or vice versa.
The irony is they seem to be the ones who hate men, yet want to be like them. The same goes for men who hate women but want to be one.Perhaps it’s the old thing of you hate what you desire.
Why , Julie , do so many lesbians adopt butch / femme roles in their coupledom ? Is it that they feel they need to ape traditional heterosexual role models, whereby the Butch one becomes an ersatz bloke and the other is his lady wife ?
In the painting surely it’s a realist scene . The maid has had to return home to look after her sick mother . The two women are merely trying to keep themselves warm in an unheated house .Honestly
Maybe just pull up the blanket?
It’s an haute bourgeoise household . The blanket is probably in the airing cupboard , but where the hell is that ?
It’s an haute bourgeoise household . The blanket is probably in the airing cupboard , but where the hell is that ?
Maybe just pull up the blanket?
In the painting surely it’s a realist scene . The maid has had to return home to look after her sick mother . The two women are merely trying to keep themselves warm in an unheated house .Honestly
This sort of thing seems to me to be an exercise in a certain kind of projection. Discrimination may demonise you, but it also makes you special and different. Now nobody stigmatises homosexuals you’re just a regular joe and who wants to be a regular joe?! So let’s manufacture some faux oppression to give ourselves something to feel special about….
This sort of thing seems to me to be an exercise in a certain kind of projection. Discrimination may demonise you, but it also makes you special and different. Now nobody stigmatises homosexuals you’re just a regular joe and who wants to be a regular joe?! So let’s manufacture some faux oppression to give ourselves something to feel special about….
He wasnt laughing when I left him.
Too busy counting his lucky stars maybe ?
I’ll admit, I started to lose interest in this article after that line. It does sound like he failed to dodge the bullet the first time but at least survived. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to care about this woman’s first world problems when she casually trivialises her marriage in such a way.
She hasn’t the least notion of what marriage even is.
She hasn’t the least notion of what marriage even is.
I’ll admit, I started to lose interest in this article after that line. It does sound like he failed to dodge the bullet the first time but at least survived. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to care about this woman’s first world problems when she casually trivialises her marriage in such a way.
He wasnt laughing when I left him.
Too busy counting his lucky stars maybe ?
Can’t we get special suits, though, like the furries?
Can’t we get special suits, though, like the furries?
I am a Julie Burchill fan, but not today. This is ‘Polly Filler’ level stuff, navel-gazing, First World Problem nothingness. Julie, you can write usually write about anything and make it entertaining, but this is the bottom of the culture war barrel.
But worth it for the picture of the two mid-Victorian sisters trying to get some sleep on a very hot night .(I have changed my mind about the iconography )
But worth it for the picture of the two mid-Victorian sisters trying to get some sleep on a very hot night .(I have changed my mind about the iconography )
I am a Julie Burchill fan, but not today. This is ‘Polly Filler’ level stuff, navel-gazing, First World Problem nothingness. Julie, you can write usually write about anything and make it entertaining, but this is the bottom of the culture war barrel.
Oh god. What next; Tony Parsons?
he writes great cop thrillers!
No, he really doesn’t. He’s read James Lee Burke and thought “I can do that!”
No, he really doesn’t. He’s read James Lee Burke and thought “I can do that!”
he writes great cop thrillers!
Oh god. What next; Tony Parsons?
Another great article Julie, to make me chuckle and mostly agree.
Another great article Julie, to make me chuckle and mostly agree.
This article is fun, fascinating and really well-written. So much so that I don’t care if I agree with the author or not. I am not concerned one way or the other. I have no dog (or b***h) in this fight. This is as fine and funny and expressive a piece of writing as I’ve yet encountered on Unherd. Great stuff.
Signed: Straight, White, Male, and Thourougjly Entertained
Did you know you can edit your spelling errors?
Did you know you can edit your spelling errors?
This article is fun, fascinating and really well-written. So much so that I don’t care if I agree with the author or not. I am not concerned one way or the other. I have no dog (or b***h) in this fight. This is as fine and funny and expressive a piece of writing as I’ve yet encountered on Unherd. Great stuff.
Signed: Straight, White, Male, and Thourougjly Entertained
Men have fetishised the erasure of women
I don’t know if this subheading is meant to be provocative or not, but it is certainly lazy language.
Does it mean all men or some men? To me it implicates all members of the class of people that are male, in some kind of negative behaviour. As such this is a negative generalisation about a class of people based on an immutable characteristic. It is fair to say that such an expressed attitude as in the subheading is prejudice?
It means ALL men in cultures that have granted women equal rights or more.
It obviously excludes men from cultures in certain parts of the middle East and Africa that treats women as inferior objects to be owned by men. Because to criticise them would be racist of course.
‘cultures that have granted women equal rights or more’? Who, then, do you imagine holds the ‘right’ to withhold ‘equal rights’ so that they need to be ‘granted’ in the first place?
They’re frequently criticized. It depends where you get your information.
‘cultures that have granted women equal rights or more’? Who, then, do you imagine holds the ‘right’ to withhold ‘equal rights’ so that they need to be ‘granted’ in the first place?
They’re frequently criticized. It depends where you get your information.
But not ‘immutable’ if the man concerned chooses to ‘mute’ them, or ‘mutilate’ them?
This is not ‘manhood’ under attack here, but the support of many – far too many – men who are homosexual or heterosexual but not ‘trans’ for the notion that ‘womanhood’ is open to any man who fancies he’d like to be accepted and treated AS a woman, and not merely behaving as IF he were a woman.
It means ALL men in cultures that have granted women equal rights or more.
It obviously excludes men from cultures in certain parts of the middle East and Africa that treats women as inferior objects to be owned by men. Because to criticise them would be racist of course.
But not ‘immutable’ if the man concerned chooses to ‘mute’ them, or ‘mutilate’ them?
This is not ‘manhood’ under attack here, but the support of many – far too many – men who are homosexual or heterosexual but not ‘trans’ for the notion that ‘womanhood’ is open to any man who fancies he’d like to be accepted and treated AS a woman, and not merely behaving as IF he were a woman.
Men have fetishised the erasure of women
I don’t know if this subheading is meant to be provocative or not, but it is certainly lazy language.
Does it mean all men or some men? To me it implicates all members of the class of people that are male, in some kind of negative behaviour. As such this is a negative generalisation about a class of people based on an immutable characteristic. It is fair to say that such an expressed attitude as in the subheading is prejudice?
A lot of people here are missing out on the wonderful, ascerbic, opinionated, incisive, witty, excoriating work of J Burchill. I disagree very often with some of her side swipes and more general attacks on ‘groups’ – but love to hear it being said. While she is still in print, despite the threat of language control, prohibition (and compulsion) she is a breath of fresh air.
We need people like her – people who just don’t give a f**k! Not too many – but some, enough!
And funny.Funny is good.
And funny.Funny is good.
A lot of people here are missing out on the wonderful, ascerbic, opinionated, incisive, witty, excoriating work of J Burchill. I disagree very often with some of her side swipes and more general attacks on ‘groups’ – but love to hear it being said. While she is still in print, despite the threat of language control, prohibition (and compulsion) she is a breath of fresh air.
We need people like her – people who just don’t give a f**k! Not too many – but some, enough!
“Reservoir Terfs” – thanks, Jules, that made my day.
“Reservoir Terfs” – thanks, Jules, that made my day.
Ah yes- the everlasting fun of being a lesbian. Don’t lesbian couples have the highest incidence of domestic violence? Also, why is it that all the lesbians I know seem to lack the femininity that I notice in women I find attractive? And what is it with the bull d**e type? Agree that Dr Stock looks cool though!
You are correct.
The highest incidence of domestic violence is between lesbian couples.
Children who magically appear with them are the most sexually abused of all children.
Concerning the last three posts, pardon my skepticism, but claims of high incidence of domestic violence with lesbian couples, and another claim that “Children who magically appear with them are the most sexually abused of all children” is news to me.
Any supporting evidence for these claims?
OK,
I did some research and according to published research papers, yes, in same-sex relationships including both lesbian and gay domestic violence occurs.
In the following paper, domestic violence is claimed to be equally common in both same-sex and heterosexual relationships.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v04n01_01
Well I never!
However, I could find no evidence suggesting DV is higher in lesbian relationships than gay male or heterosexual relationships.
It’s a homophobic trope thrown out all the time. The fact is both men and women are far likelier to suffer serious harm or death at the hands of a male partner.
There is also a huge difference between domestic abuse and common couple violence, the latter being incidents of mutual aggression that occur during arguments. Abuse follows a perpetrator-victim pattern and escalates dangerously over time. Common couple violence does not follow this pattern. It’s often more sporadic, does not necessarily escalate, and is a problem of mutual dysfunction that can be worked through in therapy.
I could be convinced that common couple violence is slightly more prevalent in same-sex relationships purely because partners might see each other as physical equals. The stigma around male-on-female aggression is so much greater than male-on-male or female-on-female.
But I have never seen any evidence that serious abuse dynamics are more prevalent in same-sex relationships, or that a woman statistically has more to fear from a female partner than a male partner.
There isn’t a stigma around male on female violence.
There isn’t a stigma around male on female violence.
Exactly, because it certainly isn’t higher.All kinds of violence against women is high all over the world.
It’s a homophobic trope thrown out all the time. The fact is both men and women are far likelier to suffer serious harm or death at the hands of a male partner.
There is also a huge difference between domestic abuse and common couple violence, the latter being incidents of mutual aggression that occur during arguments. Abuse follows a perpetrator-victim pattern and escalates dangerously over time. Common couple violence does not follow this pattern. It’s often more sporadic, does not necessarily escalate, and is a problem of mutual dysfunction that can be worked through in therapy.
I could be convinced that common couple violence is slightly more prevalent in same-sex relationships purely because partners might see each other as physical equals. The stigma around male-on-female aggression is so much greater than male-on-male or female-on-female.
But I have never seen any evidence that serious abuse dynamics are more prevalent in same-sex relationships, or that a woman statistically has more to fear from a female partner than a male partner.
Exactly, because it certainly isn’t higher.All kinds of violence against women is high all over the world.
OK,
I did some research and according to published research papers, yes, in same-sex relationships including both lesbian and gay domestic violence occurs.
In the following paper, domestic violence is claimed to be equally common in both same-sex and heterosexual relationships.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J041v04n01_01
Well I never!
However, I could find no evidence suggesting DV is higher in lesbian relationships than gay male or heterosexual relationships.
What is your source for that claim?
So not true!
Concerning the last three posts, pardon my skepticism, but claims of high incidence of domestic violence with lesbian couples, and another claim that “Children who magically appear with them are the most sexually abused of all children” is news to me.
Any supporting evidence for these claims?
What is your source for that claim?
So not true!
Rubbish! Where did you get that information? It’s not true.
Children who magically appear with them are the most sexually abused of all children.
Rubbish! Where did you get that information? It’s not true.
No they don’t have the highest incidence of domestic violence. Leave that to men who frequently assault and kill they’re female partners, wives and ex wives.
You are correct.
The highest incidence of domestic violence is between lesbian couples.
No they don’t have the highest incidence of domestic violence. Leave that to men who frequently assault and kill they’re female partners, wives and ex wives.
Ah yes- the everlasting fun of being a lesbian. Don’t lesbian couples have the highest incidence of domestic violence? Also, why is it that all the lesbians I know seem to lack the femininity that I notice in women I find attractive? And what is it with the bull d**e type? Agree that Dr Stock looks cool though!
That’s a very intriguing (if somewhat racy) picture of Julie at the top of the article.
By Gustave Courbet, a hero of the French left (and a great painter)
My mistake. I thought Page 3 had been abolished. It has just moved over to Unherd and gone a bit upmarket. I think the original model for “Le Sommeil” was Joanna Heffernan, one of the Limerick Heffernans.
That I didn’t know!
Was she also the ‘model’ for : L’Origine du monde?
That I didn’t know!
Was she also the ‘model’ for : L’Origine du monde?
My mistake. I thought Page 3 had been abolished. It has just moved over to Unherd and gone a bit upmarket. I think the original model for “Le Sommeil” was Joanna Heffernan, one of the Limerick Heffernans.
By Gustave Courbet, a hero of the French left (and a great painter)
That’s a very intriguing (if somewhat racy) picture of Julie at the top of the article.
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
That’s just silly. This “look at me being Special” special pleading makes no more sense than everyone who claims to be Queer because being average doesn’t get attention.
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
I’d argue that, since most of us are attracted to women, we’re more than halfway there…
Why “more than halfway”?
Anyway, if there’s a “most of all” that a man cannot be, I would say “a mother.”
Why “more than halfway”?
Anyway, if there’s a “most of all” that a man cannot be, I would say “a mother.”
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
I’d argue that, since most of us are attracted to women, we’re more than halfway there…
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
That’s just silly. This “look at me being Special” special pleading makes no more sense than everyone who claims to be Queer because being average doesn’t get attention.
This is a good example of what a literate person writes when they have nothing to say but simply want to be bitchy.
This is a good example of what a literate person writes when they have nothing to say but simply want to be bitchy.
[A]s long as he lived in Paris, he took part in every possible demonstration. How nice it was to celebrate something, demand something, protest against something; to be out in the open, to be with others. The parades filing down the Boulevard Saint-Germain or from the Place de la Republique to the Bastille fascinated him. He saw the marching, shouting crowd as the image of Europe and its history. Europe was the Grand March. The march from revolution to revolution, from struggle to struggle, ever onward. (3.5.4)
This article puts me in mind of this excerpt from Milan Kundera’s Unbearable Lightness of Being.
[A]s long as he lived in Paris, he took part in every possible demonstration. How nice it was to celebrate something, demand something, protest against something; to be out in the open, to be with others. The parades filing down the Boulevard Saint-Germain or from the Place de la Republique to the Bastille fascinated him. He saw the marching, shouting crowd as the image of Europe and its history. Europe was the Grand March. The march from revolution to revolution, from struggle to struggle, ever onward. (3.5.4)
This article puts me in mind of this excerpt from Milan Kundera’s Unbearable Lightness of Being.
Brilliant!!
Brilliant!!
“Men have fetishised the erasure of women”
Huh?? Never mind….
“Men have fetishised the erasure of women”
Huh?? Never mind….
Pretentious BS!
As usual she’s writing for reaction. It’s longform clickbait. The more hits she gets, good or bad, the better for her. She’s not someone to take seriously.
As usual she’s writing for reaction. It’s longform clickbait. The more hits she gets, good or bad, the better for her. She’s not someone to take seriously.
Pretentious BS!
“The boy looked at Joanie…”
This was not at the level of discourse I got accustomed to at Unherd. Maybe it is the wanton use of the term “performative”, maybe it is hasty generalizations like “once society was defined by p***s Envy,”, maybe it is the dismissive terms and strawman arguments, but this article makes me think of a term paper of a first year sociology student overdoing it.
I am as ready as the next male to experience some profound emptiness looking at lesbians in stripper heels and wearing lipstick but what I admire about KS is not her being a lesbian ( didn’t even know it for a while) but her sharp mind, great style of writing, and impeccable logic that cuts thru the mental flim-flam of pseudo-thinkers and intellectual poseurs like a razor blade. That’s what she represents to me, i.e. herself, or if you want something groupy because one must think in groups nowadays, the group of very smart people. Perhaps to the dismay of some, that includes men, too.
BTW I didn’t know KS was so often hated. Maybe one day she tells a few things about it, and explains also what the heck the last paragraph was about. My take is that she is hated because she is not what can not be a lesbian. But I’m open to being wrong here.
It is all men’s fault.
Change the record, love.
Feminism, while initially bringing some good, has been a disaster for women, an overwhemingly cancerous movement for decades. And it has been driven by women, women like yourself.
That’s what tends to happen with all social revolutions: first the real grievances are addressed; then the peripheral concerns are hijacked by special interest groups and then there’s a pact between the new-power group and the old one in which the mass of those originally oppressed can be oppressed again!
That’s what tends to happen with all social revolutions: first the real grievances are addressed; then the peripheral concerns are hijacked by special interest groups and then there’s a pact between the new-power group and the old one in which the mass of those originally oppressed can be oppressed again!
It is all men’s fault.
Change the record, love.
Feminism, while initially bringing some good, has been a disaster for women, an overwhemingly cancerous movement for decades. And it has been driven by women, women like yourself.
What narcissistic self obsessed, self indulgent, psuedo nonsense! Pretentious moi? Surely, Unherd isn’t for this.
What narcissistic self obsessed, self indulgent, psuedo nonsense! Pretentious moi? Surely, Unherd isn’t for this.
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
A man can’t be a dog or a horse either. What’s the point?
“And, most of all, what a man cannot be is a lesbian.”
A man can’t be a dog or a horse either. What’s the point?
The loudest voices among the advocates of feminism have been disparaging heterosexual sexual relationships (due to power imbalance) and promoting lesbianism for years with little success. Young women seem to have leapfrogged lesbianism in favour of the more fashionable queer, trans and non-binary identities. Julie, adding her usual anti-male jibes, has to work hard here to find a place for them in her narrative because most men either haven’t noticed or don’t care.
They may have leapfrogged the word but most are still seeking girlfriends.
They may have leapfrogged the word but most are still seeking girlfriends.
The loudest voices among the advocates of feminism have been disparaging heterosexual sexual relationships (due to power imbalance) and promoting lesbianism for years with little success. Young women seem to have leapfrogged lesbianism in favour of the more fashionable queer, trans and non-binary identities. Julie, adding her usual anti-male jibes, has to work hard here to find a place for them in her narrative because most men either haven’t noticed or don’t care.
There is of course no such thing as a lesbian, or “heterosexual” for that matter. We are men and women. Our sexual natures are determined. We mature or don’t. It is no accident that over a million young men died from pretending their sex organs were designed for different uses.
OMG nasty comment.
OMG nasty comment.
There is of course no such thing as a lesbian, or “heterosexual” for that matter. We are men and women. Our sexual natures are determined. We mature or don’t. It is no accident that over a million young men died from pretending their sex organs were designed for different uses.
What a depraved woman.
What a depraved woman.
Good old Lady Bertha Diesel-d**e..
Good old Lady Bertha Diesel-d**e..