One of the things we get accused of a lot – we feminists, we “social justice warriors,” we “#FTBullies” – is puritanism.
A new puritanism is on the march, and just as in the case of the old puritanism, its leaders are unconscionable bullies.
That’s a tweet from one of the regulars. It’s typical of the genre in its scare-mongering – note the sinister overtones of “on the march” coupled with puritanism, which is made explicit at the conclusion.
Does the accusation have much merit? Let’s try to figure it out.
What kind of purity is at issue? Political purity, or doctrinal purity, I take it. Feminism as opposed to anti-feminism, and so on for other identities. We’re accused of being purists or even puritans because we don’t want to collaborate with anti-feminists or racists or homophobes, and the like. It’s true that we don’t want to, those of us who don’t – it’s true that there are people who fit that description. So the question is, is it reasonable to call that puritan or purist?
I don’t see it, myself. I don’t think it’s a matter of taint or pollution, it’s a matter of not wanting to interact with people who have contempt for the brand of person you are.
Looked at that way, it’s even possible that the puritanism is the other way around: that people of the top caste don’t want their groups or movements polluted by underlings like women and other races and incorrect sexual orientations, or by people who agitate for the fuller inclusion of such people.
I haven’t seen the context of the tweet, but I usually take “puritanism” to be a reference to prudishness, especially about sexual matters. Given the recent discussions about sexual harassment, are you sure this isn’t another comment in the vein of feminists want to criminalize flirting, damnit I’m a very sexual being can’t I just bite someone’s leg without getting forms signed in triplicate, no one will ever get laid again and the human race will die out, etc. etc.?
Yes, pretty sure; it’s a constant theme with this tweeter (@PhilosophyExp) that the deep rifts are just the latest in the pattern of leftist political groups splintering into ever tinier and more risible factions. You know, People’s Front of Judaea v Judaean People’s Front.
I had the same idea as screechymonkey @1. We’re supposed to be sexual prudes, not accepting a quick grope as being merely flirtatious, insisting on sexual harrassment codes for conventions, not letting Thunderf00t gnaw on legs, that sort of thing.
I know. The tweet was probably meant to invoke that as an added benefit, but I think it’s the lefty political purism that was central. Notice the title says purity, not puritanism. Purity-worries have to do with way more than sex.
They don’t want to have their precious rights undermined. They don’t want to have to share rights with other people. They don’t want to have to make compromises or adjustments to their attitudes and ways of life. They don’t want to have to be considerate or caring or courteous. They don’t want to consider ways forward in a spirit of charity. They just want to be allowed to bash people because they happen to feel like it. When other people are in trouble they complain they are being ignored. They want all the attention, all the privileges, and none of the responsibility.
Sorry if not quite OT. Having a bad day.
Ophelia @4
You’re probably right. Their precious political purity is being undermined by the Deep Rifts.
I know none of my favorite bloggers are prudes, and some are even quite adventurous sexually. The concept that perpetually escapes those who spout the “prudish and puritanical” trope is consent. It’s a very simple concept; even I figured it out several decades ago.
It’s not ignorance on their part, it’s rejection of the principle that everyone should have a choice, even wimminz.
That’s pretty amusing, considering their attitudes towards women’s sexuality is hard to distinguish from the Taliban or Evangelical Christians (Mr. Diety admonishing women to just say no to alcohol so you won’t get yerself raped, Thunderfoot and the like telling women they are at fault for provoking sexual assault, etc.)
There was an article in Slate where there is a list of misogynist quotes and you guess who said it: Christian conservative or Islamic fundamentalist. I think you can add a few quotes by some atheist men and it would still be hard to tell the difference.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/10/richard_mourdock_rape_scandal_spot_the_difference_between_the_christian.html
I think there are some silly people who think that not wanting to be called a “cunt” means that I want to make genitalia and even sexual acts unmentionable. That’s not actually the point. The disparagement is the point.
I asked @PhilosophyExp what movement his subtweet was meant to address, but he didn’t answer. He seems intelligent but rather whiny. He seems to be using philosophy to avoid dealing with real-world issues, rather than to talk about them. Just my perception, based on a short perusal of his tweets.
@Ophelia Benson – October 20, 2013 at 10:02 am (UTC -7)
So, he lives in Canada, and he must be noticing the steady march of the Tea Party toward open fascism, yet he’s most worried about leftist groups? What a terrible case of misplaced priorities.
The sexual puritanism part is so weird to me. TF actually says in his rape instruction video that he agrees with Muslim fundamentalists on the burqa thing (just to a lesser degree). Don’t flirt, cover up. Don’t ‘send signals’ (in the esoteric sense). Don’t be a slut.
I think some people still believe this actually isn’t puritanism (but it’s some sort of a ‘practical advice’). As Pieter mentioned, it sounds like they find the idea of consent to be anti-sex…
In short, @PhilosophyExp seems like a complete wanker.
Oh dear, my guess based on knowledge of the anti-FTBer tweets was it looked like one of @Felch_Grogan’s sans the usual collection of #hashes and links to memes etc… Not a flattering comparison for Stangroom 😀
Especially ironic considering how much slut shaming (a puritanical act if any) is a part of the anti-FTB culture.
The original puritans were insistent on religio-political purity and states governed by the godly. The Pilgrim Fathers and Oliver Cromwell were examples. When people refer to puritanism in modern contexts, surely they are making such a comparison. In fact, when you consider it, references to prudery or sexual prudishness wouldn’t apply to feminists, new or old. It’s feminists who argue the case for women having sexual and social equality with men, for easy access to contraceptives, for the right of women to work outside the home and to have the same educational access as men. None of these imply prudery but they have been taken to require the overthrow of the natural/God-given state of male superiority and the establishment of a domineering dictatorship enforcing politically correct policies.
If by “Puritan”, they mean “pro- obvious and enthusiastic consent” and “anti- rape and sexual assault”, then yes, I’m a damn Puritan and proud of it.
>using philosophy to avoid dealing with real-world issues
Sums it up neatly. Exactly that. If you can whinge about etymology and semantics you can avoid hurting your brain with real problems.