The other weekend I found myself helping out at something called 2.8 Hours later. Basically it’s a game where people form themselves into teams, pay a substantial amount of money, and get chased through the centre of town by hordes of unemployed actors dressed in surgical greens pretending to be the undead. I was at the final part of the game where players had to pass through a fairly narrow gate to safety. The zombies were especially prevalent and extremely keen at this point and I’d guess up to half of the players who got caught were infected at the gates. Those who made it through safely were debriefed and allowed to go straight to the zombie disco, as “humans”; those who were infected were led upstairs where the make-up team had fun spattering them with fake blood and applying the goriest of wounds.
I watched this over four consecutive days and noticed a fairly stable pattern early on. Men made up more than half of the players, but something like two thirds of the zombies in the bar were female. Most teams were mixed, though the few who were all male were much more likely to succeed in getting through the gates unscathed. And in the mixed teams the women were much more likely to get caught by a zombie and led away to the make-up room.
I must have asked a couple of hundred women why they got caught whilst their male team-mates managed to remain human and there were two clear answers. Many of them said they had sacrificed themselves for the good of the team (ie the men) and many more said they had sacrificed themselves for the sake of cosmetics; they’d got through the whole game safely but decided that they didn’t want to miss the chance of dressing up as it seemed like the best fun. Winning didn’t seem as attractive to them as an opportunity to look good (well, look as good as you can if you’ve just been molested by masses of the undead.)
Yesterday I was in a coffee shop behind two serious looking, power dressing, jargon talking women of a certain age. The barista, a lad of perhaps twenty two, smiled broadly, “What can I get you girls?” Both women giggled, nudged each other, and started speaking in what can only be described as “cooing” tones.
Last night I went to a preview of an opera at the Howard Assembly Room, Leeds Grand Theatre. The Physicists begins with a murdered woman on the floor – and the information that this is the second nurse to have been killed – and the first act ends with a third nurse being strangled.
And let’s not even mention the hot dog hoohah.
What is going on?
Do we still need feminism to help sort it out? I’d say yes, but …
In the case of the zombies, I’m not sure. I can’t say I spotted any oppression (and I’m not being facetious) and the women seemed to have at least as good a time as the men. What explains the different values – the men single-minded about winning, women more altruistic and focused on everyone having a good time – is what puzzles me. I don’t really buy the sociobiological argument that it’s the genes what make us do it, but then I’m not sure the feminist explanation that it’s all about patriarchy and structural inequality helps much either. If the zombie women were suffering false consciousness then they knew exactly what they were doing (yes, it’s a paradox) and were having a hell of a lot of fun … more false consciousness all round, please.
And weren’t the women in Starbucks also playing a game? In the circumstances they were the ones with the power, they could easily have humiliated the young guy, or they could have enlightened him about the use of sexist language, but instead they chose to play along. And again, it seemed to add a smidgen of joy to the sum of human happiness.
As for the opera … it’s opera! There’s some sort of quota for dead women in high art, and probably some Arts Council stipulation about the sum of sexist carnage (and, before I get shot down on this one, yes I have read Elizabeth Bronfen’s Book, Over Her Dead Body … I’ll lend it if anyone is interested, it’s a great work of feminist scholarship.)
And the hot dog hoohah … let’s all grow up. Change the poster, yes, it’s offensive. But do we really need the huffing and puffing on Twitter etc? Moral indignation is really unappealing. Parading your perfect ideological credentials just makes you look silly. It’s Twitter, damn it!
Right, it’s eight o’ clock, time to post before I think too much about what I just said.
I am often frustrated by women who complain about being objectified and complain about being referred to as a “girl” or “love” right up until the point where someone they fancy does it – and suddenly they slip into coquettish flirt mode – or they get to a certain age and long to be young again.
It has been irritating me that the Olympics refer to the women athletes as girls, what’s all that about?
Dunno … do they refer to men as “lads”?
I think it’s probably about infantilising sports and the people who play them. They can’t be very clever if they go about behaving as kids, can they?
This must make Sheffield the most advanced city in the world for equality. Everyone: male, female, young, old, animal or vegetable is addressed as ‘love’.
I used to love working in Rotherham – they called everybody “ducks” … isn’t that sweet!
Wow. You completely missed the point of the ‘hot dog hoohah’.
What’s the point?
That the offending (and offensive, I totally agree) ad was retweeted hundreds of times, giving everyone chance to indulge in moral cringing while simultaneously showing the thing to more people?
No, I don’t see the point of that.
Maybe a quiet word would have been more effective. You know, in private like grown ups used to do.
I’m not quite sure what pillorying the guy on twitter was meant to achieve. He should have been told to apologise to the customer he abused and maybe forced to go on a customer service training workshop. Now that’s proper punishment!
Of course I could be entirely wrong and I’m happy to publish your thoughts on the thing if you’d like to put them in writing.
The ‘hoohah’ wasn’t all about the poster. It was more about the tweet that was made from the Primos twitter account making fun of the woman who complained. Then they said she was probably fat. Then it turned into a whole ‘she’s an angry feminist who needs to get a sense of humor’ thing.
To me it seemed like people were more annoyed with the handling of the situation than the poster!
agree, but I don’t think the Twitter shit storm helps … just backs the baddy into a corner and encourages thoughtless behaviour.
Twitter encourages instant moral superiority without and moral enquiry, and that’s the problem as I see it.
I’m probably entirely in agreement with you about the rights and wrongs of this, I’m just a bit more dubious about the innocence of twitter …
But like I said, if you can convince me otherwise I’m happy to listen.
Having seen the apology issued by the owner of Primos today I think that all these people retweeting and getting offending on twitter has opened his eyes a bit. So if this hadn’t have happened he still wouldn’t understand what everyone was getting so upset about. Doesn’t that make it a good thing? I’m not saying it’s the ideal way…
I’m not sure he will have learned much, except to keep his trap shut. I haven’t read the apology yet but I will bet it’s diplomatic, politic, and absolutely formulaic. And I don’t see the gain in that.
The “gain” is that when a public statement is withdrawn it sends an equally public message that its original content was unacceptable. Which it was.
I would usually agree with your comments about Twitter and the hive-mind mentality however in this case I must disagree. The corporation made an ignorant and offensive statement and then only bowed due to large public outrage. An old story, only the media (ie Twitter/Facebook instead of letters to a newspaper) has changed.
I think the problem was that the complainant initially contacted them privately (a quiet word) but was mocked on twitter – hence the response…
I was in a coffee shop today, having a coffee, yes honestly having a coffee, reflecting on the world and the Olympics and how great the games have been so far. From this conversation somehow we started to talk about the debate that occurred on Twitter, these are my thoughts, yes the poster is offensive and always will be. That there has to be a zero tolerance attitude towards such matters. Can l say, “this is not political correctness bull shit” but if we accept it, where does it end? The termination of the Jews in World War 2 started with mocking them!!
Harvinder, nice to know you were having a non alcoholic beverage. I applaud you for that.
But slippery slope arguments simply do not convince anyone. That’s just student union politics.
My argument was never that the poster was wrong or that the behaviour subsequently wasn’t bloody stupid, just that we didn’t need all the moral indulgence on twitter.
Twitter seems to offer an easy escalator to mount a very high horse.
I hear what you are saying Phil, l can not comment on the “moral indulgence”,that you are referring to, but what l can say is this:”By the re-tweeting that has occurred, maybe people would consider their actions and how they can affect individuals.
Retweeting doesn’t change the world, Harvi. This is post-modern politics where we tut tut our way to the promised land.
RT’ing to your like minded followers is much easier than educating, organising and taking genuine political action.
It makes you feel like you did good though.
I would have to disagree with you here. I think recently twitter has helped people bring shitty things to other peoples attention and then the companies involved have had to take action due to the shitstorn and everyone talking about it. Sometimes making people aware is enough??
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say with your accurate scientific survey of zombie, opera and coffee shop behaviour.
However, on your main point of the huffing and puffing on Twitter I completely disagree. The Primo’s poster was bad business; plain and simple. Many of the customers, both potential, and actual, expressed their discontent on Twitter. Which is exactly what Twitter is for; we all love the “angry voice” possibilities of Twitter – don’t we? The apology was tweet as a link. Job done.
This was the right thing to as a response to what happened, and it was the right context to do it. In addition to this, I would hope that the women who was subject to genuinely nasty and inappropriate insults would also get free hot dogs for life.
This isn’t about feminism, or politics, it’s about arrogance and bad bahaviour. Apology accepted, as far as I’m concerned.
I still don’t rate the hot dogs though.
I can’t remember claiming to be accurate or scientific, I was simply intrigued by what I observed. I didn’t know how to explain what I saw.
And I kind of agree about the poster – though apparently it’s been up for a couple of years so can’t have been that bad for business.
I’m not sure I agree about the twitter response though. The behaviour was bad, sure. But it’s very easy to express moral outrage and be all upstanding citizen on Twitter … how many of those shouting on social media would have said a word to his face?
It felt to me like we were all turning into grasses, like the school sneak, who sidles into headmasters office with a “do you know what so and so just said, sir?” All it in fact led to was even more abhorent behaviour, fuelled by the satisfying feeling of self-righteous vindication, by a lot of people who think twitter is the means by which they become the masked avenger, righting public wrongs from the safety of their own laptop. Peurile, pathetic and pointless. If that unleashing of “the angry voice” is what you think twitter is about then God help us. It was the equivalent of sticking shit through a letterbox then running away.
And extorting a begrudged belated apology is hardly a triumph of civility over loutish behaviour, is it?
I hope the woman who got insulted tells them to stick the hot dogs where the sun don’t shine. And I hope she tells her twitter “supporters” exactly how much their behaviour is appreciated.
Hello Philip,
Right, first things first I am going to go with your statement “And let’s not even mention the hot dog hoohah” and I am not going to talk about it :0)
I have read your blog 4 or 5 times now and I’m still not entirely sure what to make of it. It’s the title that grabs me, and I am not sure if it is complete coincidence or a cheeky nod but I can’t fail to be intrigued considering that I am running a Leeds based performance project that is investigating men in feminism called ‘Foolish men’.
You don’t seem to offer many conclusions, so I wonder if you intend to catapult the cats among the pigeons and see what happens? I wonder if the crux of this is that in the broad spectrum of experience which can be defined by patriarchy you have picked a fabulous concoction of issues which are barely issues at all? Is that what is foolish? Seeing gender inequality everywhere and therefore a failure to concentrate on the things that really matter? Are you having a prod at the people who get carried away (arguably, as in the unmentionable issue?)?
I get the impression that you consider yourself to be a feminist and / or feminist supporter from: “Do we still need feminism to help sort it out? I’d say yes” If so, what have you observed that you think is solid enough to be the undeniable duty of feminism to to sort out?
If your interested here is a blog I wrote yesterday about my journey towards becoming a man who is foolish enough to talk about feminism, if you have the time I would be interested to hear your thoughts: http://simonbrewistheatregeek.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/a-call-to-arms-for-men-who-believe-in-gender-equality/
Thanks for your time Philip,
Simon.
Obviously the title is no coincidence. I was intrigued by your project and have been actively asking the men I know if they want to take part. I think it might be fun.
As for conclusions … in 800 words, you must be kidding.
Sorry you think my “concoction of issues” are barely issues at all. Certainly they were very personal observations, but I seem to recall a phrase from the feminist movement back when I was a lad – “the personal is political.” It was used generally to counter arguments that most feminist observations and experiences were about trivial, domestic, lightweight matters, you know the day to day stuff we all do like going to work, having a coffee, watching some theatre.
The zombies genuinely puzzled me. I asked getting on for a thousand women over four days why they did what they did, and that was their genuine response. Sorry you don’t find it theoretically illuminating enough. Maybe I should have asked the men what they thought, but they were too busy getting drink and comparing stories of how they fought off a dozen undead at Temple Works gates.
The coffee incident was genuinely happening in front of me as I was drafting the blog post. A trivial encounter, exactly the sort of thing feminism sets out to illuminate. I was wondering about power … just because women are systematically oppressed it doesn’t mean they are powerless as some one dimensional proponents of patriarchy claim.
My opera example included a reference to a very profound work of feminist scholarship. If you’d like to borrow it come down to my office sometime where I have several thousand other works of feminist scholarship from all theoretical persuasions.
My thoughts about your blog? Once upon a time, and not so very long ago, you would have been pilloried for that title … perhaps you should find a real feminist and ask her why.
Thanks for a meaty and prompt reply to my comment Philip. I am really glad that your intrigued by the project and you think it sounds like fun and thanks you for the support. I didn’t want to assume you were referencing us, but obviously I am chuffed that you are.
I think I need to apologise. It can sometimes be difficult to get your head round the general frame of what some one is saying when everything is reduced to text. In retrospect I completely agree that the day to day, personal is political, observations are really important and illuminating. I think it is the small things that drive a lot of peoples interest when it comes to recognising gender inequality becuase they can see it effecting them or the people they care about.
Thinking about it reminds me of an occasion when I walked back into the room after going to the loo at a party and for the first time observing a scene where all of the men were talking to each other loudly and all of the women were sitting round the edges looking bored. The men were talking only to each other so loudly that only their conversation was possible and they were unwilling to engage women; It was like the women were invisible to them. I stood and watched it for ages. I think I had only recently started thinking about gender and it was a ‘scales fell from my eyes moment’… now I ‘see’ it all the time. But it was a tiny and personal moment which was an example of something much bigger which I could see happening an affecting my friends. In fact you have got me thinking. I wonder if there is a place for ‘the personal is political’ i.e. the day to day incidences that we have experienced in the show?
I have just been chatting to my girlfriend about the 2.8 hours later phenomenon. She was wondering if it was to do with a difference in expectation between the men and the women. The men perhaps feel like it is expected of them to win and therefore tried a lot harder to not get caught (I know I was certainly super annoyed with myself when I allowed myself to get caught! And she said that she wondered at the time if she had missed out when she didn’t).
Considering that dressing up as a zombie is arguably the most fun aspect is it possible that get caught so you can dress up is actually the more normal behaviour? Therefore is it the men responding to patriarchal expectations of their gender which is skewing their experience of the game and causing them to act strangely? Its a theory…
On the blog title and why feminists might not appreciate it… ok, perhaps becuase the notion of men ‘coming to arms’ to fight for gender equality against patriarchy places themselves and their masculine values at the centre of the fight. This is ridiculous when fighting the assumed dominance of men in our culture? I can see that as a potentially valid criticism? It is a potential problem across the board when seeking to engage with feminism as a man I have recently discovered. But in light of your comment I will attempt to ask some ‘real’ / more experienced feminists and see what they say.
Right I have banged on long enough. Thanks for the thoughts, and the offer of a book. Where is ur office?
Simon.
Someone on Twitter the other day mentioned they were in a shop trying to get a doctors uniform for their young daughter for a kids dressing up party … “try the boys section” was the shop assistants response.
These little, unnoticed encounters exemplify exactly what we face.
And my post was obviously a bit of a piss take. I grew up around some very strong clever women; yes there was systematic, social, structural discrimination, but if you told them they were downtrodden they would have boxed your ears.
The books are at Temple Works, so come and grab some, just let me know when you’re around.
And your title … martial imagery is most definitely frowned upon by a certain – and in my view, correct – brand of radical feminism. You might want to think about that (and read Barbara Ehrenreich’s book on gender and war, it’s brilliant.)
And, while I’m at it, you might also want to look at the last sentence of your blog … “allow” … think about it.