# 40, are you the author? Yeah, epic fail would be one way of putting it. The article was relatively tame and inoffensive until that point; saying 'don't go on a massive feminist rant about it' is so defensive, of course it's attracted comment. How come it's there? I'm really surprised it got through the editing process. Unless there is no editing process.

Praise from Caesar indeed. You're now being endorsed by bigots, Mr. Hitchens. Congrats.

Using feminist AS an offensive name and making a joke in poor taste is not only the definition of bigot, it's also woefully uninformed.

Gillian

In responding to a guy who said he and his girlfriend's relationship was characterised by a level of tradition in terms of gender roles, you said this:

"Asking for you to explain terms you use isn't pointless, it's supposed to highlight exactly what outdated assumptions you're using."

What do you mean by 'outdated'? And armed with that definition, how do you (personally) know that something is or is not outdated?

There is an enormous amount of bigotry in feminism. So much so, that quite a large amount of feminist theory is unworthy of academic study, I would suggest. Some is important, of course, and small amounts are excellent. I think you should recognise that people will indeed make assumptions about your view for two reasons: there must be a fair few who have also found many feminists bigoted; crucially, you state very little indeed and merely pose questions, many of which, yes, I find extremely pedantic. The endless posing of questions without setting out one's views used to be fashionable in academic circles, because such folks mistakenly thought that it was a sign of intellectual rigour to 'complexify' everything rather than do the hard work of analysing and evaluating things and suggesting solutions, findings or conclusions. An enormous amount of time and energy was wasted asking questions instead of answering them. If you ally yourself, as you seem to have done, with a strand of thought that contains bigotry, and further, if you merely churn out questions in order to make your readers believe that there is nothing that can be regarded as mainstream or traditional, you may lay yourself open to criticism involving high horses and bigotry.

In fact, why don't you just say what YOU think about the following. You haven't yet, and it is the point of the article:

Very many heterosexual couples, where both partners are intelligent, humane, able people, enjoy to varying degrees a pattern of behaviour where the man acts in a chivalrous, sometimes protective, way to the woman. They both find it comforting, enjoyable, sometimes fun.

I think your view on this is now more necessary than your view on the second to last paragraph.

• Mon, 28th Mar 2011 3:55pm - Edited by the author

Mr Spelling, you are right on one point. What I meant (and should have made clear) is that I take issue with that assumption about gender roles WHEN RELATING TO CHIVALRY. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was making a value judgment about that person's relationship. I hope that is cleared up, it's my fault for not writing clearly.

Do I find chivalry offensive? No. I never claimed to be offended by it,but you all insisted I clarify my position on it. So there you go: I don't object in any way to it.

My view on this article is that it is badly written, relatively pointless, and quite boring; my view on Mr Hitchens is that he is an idiot. His article on chat-up lines included the gem 'girls are emotional creatures, not logical ones.' It's hard to read any of his pieces seriously having been exposed to his back catalogue. However, this particular article didn't offend me until the much-discussed penultimate paragraph. Is all that clear now?

I don't represent anyone. My views are my own.

Mr Spelling, what feminist academia have you been reading? Because it's a shame you have such a bad view of it. And I believe asking questions is a pretty good way of working out where you stand in relation to others' opinions, and adjusting accordingly. It would be extremely interesting to find out what the Women's Studies staff thought about your comment. Feminism is about gender equality, not bigotry. I honestly don't think you understand what feminist theory is, and to say you don't think something is worthy of academic study requires some serious knowledge of the subject.

Gillian. I don't think that you are supposed to take Alex Hitchens' writing that seriously. I think he is writing light, jokey, lifestyle lad pieces. They are not tremendously clever or funny, I know. But I am not seeing him as anything other than a guy having a laugh writing quite affectionately about girls. There is a place for light-hearted commentary based on stereotypes where one gender has a pop at the other.

I take issue with your view that the article is pointless in the sense that I can see a satirical point behind a young guy advising others how to treat girls, how to pull, how to have fun. There is absolutely no malice in his writing. It's a little self-deprecating and not meant to be taken as gospel. I think you are harsh to judge him as an idiot. When he writes that girls are emotional, not logical, he doesn't mean it. It is for comic effect, I would suggest.

Naturally we should ask questions. But we should venture out from behind them sometimes.

It wouldn't be interesting at all to find out what the staff at Women's Studies thought about my comment that a great deal of feminist writing is unworthy of academic study. It would be extremely predictable and I could write their response to me right now! The roots and origin of feminism are worthy and no-one here wants anything other than full equality of opportunity. I joy in the differences between men and women, though, and the ones I enjoy do not hurt anyone at all. There is no role for those who wish to police that, other than an academic/ideological version of pyramid selling and preaching to the converted. There is a huge world beyond Heslington and it does not necessarily play by your rules.

To finish, if these articles are light-hearted and funny, the tone's been misjudged. Mr Spelling, you have proven you do not understand what the application of feminist theory in an academic setting entials. #53, I'm arguing with people who were accusing me of holding views I don't have, not arguing about the article mostly.

My work is done!
Mwah xxx

If this is done work, one fears for your degree!

You're so right!