Image via tumblr.
He is not a fan of The Sun newspaper’s daily titfest, nor is he a misogynist who believes that a woman’s place is to be objectified. He is an intellectual, which makes it all the more disappointing that he should use a national platform to casually deconstruct a movement that should have been made years ago.
Robbins states that Holmes campaign is ‘sinister’ and…
…rooted in the same desire for sexual hegemony we see in anti-porn campaigns, or Naomi Wolf’s latest literary clusterfuck, or – ironically – in The Sun itself: the idea that there exists one sexuality superior to all others, and that it’s this sexuality we should all should aspire too.
He cites as proof Holmes’ manifesto that appears on her e-petition in which she states that “sex is no longer beautiful” and the comments below it that are openly hostile to any form of female exploitation, regardless of relevance.
Just for clarity, Page 3 is a symbolic institution in this country and its removal from a popular family newspaper can only ever be a positive thing. The rampant sexualisation of women in the media that Robbins cites as a reason not to worry about Page 3 is a relic of the society that constructed misogyny, it doesn’t exist because of it.
Holmes’ arguments can be construed as naive, even ‘slut-shaming’, (if it’s necessary to perpetuate that kind of language) but does this naivety mean her stand is erroneous? That because she does not understand feminist theory in its entirety and that women can perpetuate misogyny with attitudes like this, she’s a fool and should not stand up for what she believes in? Surely there are some cases where a wider view should be applied by the cognoscenti?
Frankly, this is the kind of condescending bullshit that makes a lot of women accept misogyny without question, because there’s always someone waiting to take them down for having the temerity to open their mouths and object.
Although not me, apparently.
Please. Just sign the damn thing, would you?