Harriet Jean Evans takes a look at the social commentary of the past, and explains why she believes it just doesn't matter.
Our anonymous blogger reflects on her attempts to have a student Christmas... and how she came to the conclusion that home-made is always best.
Gillian Love urges you to vote 'No' to the motion to replace Women's Committee with a 'Gender Equality Committee'.
For girls:
· It might be hip to act assertive and make the first move these days, but a girl can get into all sorts of trouble this way. Remember, the word ‘slut’ isn’t quite reclaimed yet! So if you have the hots for a guy, there’s no better way of bagging him than making bashful eye contact and fluttering those lashes. It might take a while to catch on, but he’ll ask you out eventually!
· Use the tools at your disposal. Luckily, girls don’t have to rely on their ‘natural beauty’ like men do, so get those straighteners on and don’t skimp on the mascara! Don’t look like you’ve made too much effort, though. Enough of an effort that he feels flattered, obviously. Too much can give off the wrong signals, of course. Except … OK, just put the make-up on and be done with it.
· Robin Lakoff identified that women use much more polite and hesitant language than men (Lakoff, 1975). Work those socio-linguistic principals, girls! Avoid coarse language, never interrupt, use empty adjectives like ‘adorable’ and ‘gorgeous,’ and apologise if you contradict your date. He’ll see that you’re the perfect lady!
For boys:
· Despite what feminists might claim, women long for the 1950s when men were men and wielded patriarchal privilege like a sexy whip. So, be assertive! Playing hard to get won’t work on you – you’re a strong, confident man with the sticking-power of a bulldog – just grind her down until she agrees to a date (even if it’s only to stop you asking).
· Now you’ve got your date, it’s up to you to choose the venue. This means a LOT of pressure. Anything vaguely clichéd like a cinema or dinner date will not impress. Think outside the box. Not so far outside that you’re contemplating a cock-fight or a hiking trip around Europe, just something zany like…Laser Quest? OK, stick to the cinema for now until you think of something sensible.
· Play it cool. You’ve got the date, chosen the film (quick tip: rom-coms yes, zombie shoot-outs no), now you must relax and retain an aloof yet accessible air of nonchalance. If she takes the lead in conversation (unlikely – have you ever read Robin Lakoff?), don’t just agree with everything she says. You are an independent, self-confident young man with opinions of his own – the chicks dig that.
So, now you’ve got these handy tips to get you started, the exciting realm of male-female relations is open to you, bold explorer! Stay safe out there (girls, this means get on the Pill. Boys, this means bring an emergency condom. But, really, she’s got the ovaries, so suggest she gets on the Pill).
This does not pass for good satire. It is clearly your own politicized view of what is wrong with the general consensus on gender roles in dating. Some of what you have said even passes for standard OK advice for dating - like the make-up issue. It just simply isn't funny. Maybe it would work if you sent it to Feminist weekly or whatever. You may note that some of the most successful satire, e.g. Private Eye in print or HIGNFY in television is funny to anyone of any political persuasion. This is just a sarcastic, feminist critique of a lot of things that pass for the norm in dating.
Where's the advice for transgendered people? Outrageous. And you have the nerve call yourself a feminist?
But this isn't Private Eye, this is a small student satire section! Which actually has satirised a range of things, so why not a feminist one too i say.
#2 I assume you're being ironic since the piece is satirising the 'gender binary' as she calls it in typical dating advice you find in mags etc. But just to point out, feminism doesn't necessarily = trans-friendly. Some feminists are actually transphobic (Germaine Greer openly is).
#1 'just a sarcastic, feminist critique'
As far as I'm aware, satire is very often sarcastic, and the 'critique' part is pretty crucial. So it seems the only problem you have with this is that it's feminist (in that it critiques gender roles in dating). It's also hilarious that you say the make-up thing is just useful dating advice lol i think she's pointing out the virgin-whore dichotomy - look sexy and pretty, but not TOO sexy and pretty...
BTW, she hasn't actually said she's feminist. It's possible to critique this sort of this and not be especially feminist?
No no.#4 My main problem is that it isn't funny, at all. Nor is any of her other satire. I was just criticising an aspect of it, because the underlining fact is, it's just not good satire.
And she is a feminist, just because she's not said 'I am a feminist' at the beginning of the article doesn't mean she isn't. There's nothing wrong with being a feminist, but it's a pretty small target audience and the best satire is neutral.
Neutral satire? No such thing. Things like Private Eye are supposedly 'neutral' because they have a range of writers. HIGNFY has a different range of people each week, and the team captains temselves have differing viewpoints. So actually, it's not an individual's satire that is necessarily 'neutral.' As far as I can see, Double Take only has 2 writers, so you'll forgive them if they aren't punching with the big boys just yet.
comment deleted by the author I think this is a fairly funny and harmless article that people are labelling as 'feminist' because they know of the author. Give her a break.
I don't find this particularly funny. Whether or not is has to do with feminism, etc. I don't know and couldn't care. For satire to work there has to be a fair amount of exaggeration and silliness. This just reads like generic but not particularly well thought out dating advice.
BUT kudos on having the metaphorical balls to publish this attempt online, which isn't something anyone would do. And I agree that women wear far too much make up - most would look better without so much gunk slapped on their faces, in my opinion.
#9 "For satire to work there has to be a fair amount of exaggeration and silliness. This just reads like generic but not particularly well thought out dating advice "
I draw your attention to this line:
"Despite what feminists might claim, women long for the 1950s when men were men and wielded patriarchal privilege like a sexy whip. So, be assertive!"
Pretty sure that's a) exaggerated and b) not dating advice you'd find normally!
It's pretty redundant to just say 'this is funny/unfunny'; satire like most comedy is subjective. What is worth commenting on, however, is things like style and writing flair, which I think this piece has. It's tone is sharp and ironic and actually does pick up on some of the stupid dating advice you get in women's mags and, if I may say so, The Yorker's 'Guy's Guide to Girls'!
I also think it's pretty patronising of you to say 'oh well done for trying and actually publishing this.' I looked and she's the satire editor - pretty sure she knows what she's doing.
#10 she's editor because she was uncontested. Clearly, they had no other choice but to pick her.
#10 How is it patronising to point out she had the courage to have a go at something and post the end result in public, for potentially everyone with an internet connection to read and critique? I didn't think it was great, but that doesn't detract from the point. (And just because someone is a satire editor, that doesn't entail that they're funny.)
Nothing pisses me off more than the whole 'oh, this is subjective and your opinion is no more valid than anyone else' routine. Satirical writing is a practice, and within all practices there are standards and goals; in this case, achieving a successful parody is the main one. The sentence you quote isn't an exaggeration - what's being exaggerated? It is a stereotyping of the kind of advice which does get dished out to men - be assertive, confident, show her you're not an indecisive weakling, etc. - but reads as more of a salvo at anti-feminists, and has an air of hectoring rather than whimsy.
#11 - "she's editor because she was uncontested. Clearly, they had no other choice but to pick her."
I wonder why you feel it appropriate to talk about this? Perhaps you are involved in The Yorker and were present at the election, in which case this is entirely inappropriate and a rather sly attack on another Yorker writer. Otherwise, you have access to someone from The Yorker who's told you about the election, in which case you're just a prick, really.
Running uncontested does not leave you with no choice - anyone can vote against, or abstain. Or did you not understand how elections work?
I didn't understand the Robin Lakoff references.
#13 You're the one who claimed she must be funny because she's the satire editor. Someone points out the glaring hole in this and you call them a prick. Nice.
# 13 here, I'm not #10. I know all the anons blur into one another...
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report