At in-house seminars about defamation, it is drummed into Irish Times journalists that, if they criticise someone's words or actions, they must make clear what they are commenting upon. If, for example, I attack a politician's views about asylum-seekers, I must take care to state correctly what these views are. Thus, readers can decide if my comment is reasonable.
If I were to denounce my colleague Nuala O'Faolain because of her views about men, I would need to convey some sense of what she has said on the subject. I might quote her as stating "the evil of machismo is driving the suffering of the planet", or that "many men avoid, as best they can, the ennui of caring for their children". This would entitle me to state that, for example, I find Ms O'Faolain's views offensive, hurtful, outdated and/or silly.
Yet, the Saturday before last, writing in the Irish Times Magazine, Ms O'Faolain launched an onslaught on myself and a colleague, citing not one word to suggest what she had in mind: "I've been sharply hurt, often, by the way my colleagues John Waters and Kevin Myers talk about an imaginary race called `women'. It is not what they say . . . but the way they say it. The rancour and even venom behind their generalisations, and the way they use `feminist' as a curse-word, is terribly upsetting." She wrote, of the alleged "self-indulgent abusiveness" of Kevin Myers and me, and said neither of us would "last long" on a "reputable paper here"(in the US).
Kevin Myers may speak for himself, but I have never talked about "an imaginary race called `women' " or attacked anybody on the basis of gender. I have never made generalisations about women in the way, as illustrated above, Nuala O'Faolain has made generalisations about men. I an unaware of using the word "feminist" as a curse-word. I do not believe my writing has been rancorous or venomous towards women, and women I respect have never found it so. I have not applied to work on an American paper, but have been assured I could make a living as a journalist in the US. I believe it actionable to suggest that, because of the "self-indulgent abusiveness" of my writing, I would not "last long" in such a position.
But Ms O'Faolain's article was useful in exposing the intellectual dishonesty of feminist responses to criticism, and revealing why they are really "offended". Feminists, having created a massive victimology out of the alleged oppression of women, have arrogated the right to speak for all women and created an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not criticise women".
No other group or ideology can claim immunity from criticism in the way feminism does, or rubbish its critics by accusing them of hating half the human race. Nuala O'Faolain sought to fireproof her tirade by stating: "John Waters has been a truly important voice for unmarried fathers". I might find this comforting except that, when I first began to speak about the denial of human rights to fathers, Nuala O'Faolain was among those who attacked me.
What "offends" feminists about what Kevin Myers and I write about gender is not "the way they say it" but that our arguments are unanswerable. I have written about fatherhood; male health, homelessness and suicide; the abuse of men in the family courts; and the Big Lie concerning domestic violence. Always I have written as an advocate of men and their human rights, my references to women being largely incidental. What I have suggested is that men are in certain ways oppressed. Feminists, claiming a monopoly on suffering, do not like this. Nor do they like the fact that, by advancing a plausible case, people like us have had an effect on public opinion. We must be shamed into silence. This is why no feminist has ever responded to an article of mine with a coherent refutation or critique, but always with ad hominem abuse and the childish assertion that I am "anti-woman".
Most enlightening about Nuala O'Faolain's article was that it unwittingly exposed the sly feminist trick of invoking the totality of female experience in a self-serving argument. I find it bizarre that even feminists with no children feel entitled to invoke the children of other women, and men, against men who may be both parents and workers.
If women ruled, declared Ms O'Faolain, the world would be a better place. (Tell it to those who loved the boys who died in the Belgrano.) "Ireland would not be like it is. The desks of opinion columnists would not be tidied while they sleep by women who are doing night-cleaning work so as to be at home to give the kids their breakfast before getting them off to school." Observe the staggering condescension of a privileged former Oxbridge dame sniping from behind the skirts of working women who have more in common with most working men than with her.
Two things. Firstly, I do not have a desk in the Irish Times, so there is nothing for anyone to tidy. Secondly, I am a single parent who works from home. As often as not, having laboured from before dawn, I tidy away my papers and go downstairs to prepare my child's breakfast before taking her to school. US papers, "reputable" or otherwise, please copy.
jwaters@irish-times.ie