Today I got into the weirdest Twitter conversation. And I mean seriously weird. And it ended up with me being blocked by Helen Razor. Which is ironic because I had stopped following her a couple of months ago because I found her to be … not my cup of tea. I’ve never been blocked before. It was highly amusing. So I thought I’d publish the transcript.
I’ve put the time stamp beside every tweet because, in the way of twitter conversations, things were not quite as singularly linear as a timeline like this represents. But I don’t want to misrepresent how the conversation flowed. So anyway, here it is.
It began with me reading an article of Helen’s on Crikey: Target’s tramp gear just child’s play.
I decided to engage Helen in some debate about her article, largely because I didn’t agree with it, but partly because I think she’d misunderstood the original mother’s intent who posted on the Target page – and was missing all mothers’ concerns – in this area. Being a mum who has written about this extensively, I thought we’d exchange ideas and agree to disagree. You know, share ideas, listen to each other and then move on.
Not quite. Here’s how our conversation actually went.
3.09 FelicityMoore: “Important to remember kids just see cloth and it is we who see meaning. ” Not true.The hysteria is coz girls want to be sexy.
3.10 HelenRazer: Please argue sensibly.
3.11 FelicityMoore: No problem. http://bit.ly/MpvCts
3.12 HelenRazer: I do not think you read my piece. Children have no understanding of “sexy” in the symbolic terms we do.
FelicityMoore: You sort of missed the point a little. I did read your article. You misunderstood where mums are coming from.
3.13 FelicityMoore: Girls can dress up all they want. This is not about stopping dress-ups in kitten heels. It’s about children approaching onset
3.13 FelicityMoore: of puberty and adulthood at the correct times for their development.
3.14 FelicityMoore: It’s the mimicry of the sexy behaviour that is unnecessary. Kids don’t understand sexy, therefore should not try ‘being’ sexy.
3.15 FelicityMoore: No, they don’t. You must be right then! (In reply to Helen’s 3.12 tweet)
3.16 HelenRazer: Dude. Read what I’ve written then argue with that. Or nick off.
3.17 FelicityMoore: Interesting response when someone tries to engage…
3.15 HelenRazer: Dude. If those kids make you uncomfortable then that is entirely your problem.
3.16 FelicityMoore: You’re still missing the point, but I suspect being deliberately obtuse. For the humour angle? *shrug*
HelenRazor: It makes you uncomfortable. That’s it. There’s no evidence it harms kids. None. I have written about this multiply times. Nick off.
3.18 HelenRazer: Dude. I have 1000 words for you to read. I have no responsibility to argue my case again with someone in a Bit of a Mood.
3.19 FelicityMoore: Hee hee. A Bit of a Mood? 
3.18 FelicityMoore: In fact there’s a significant level of evidence that suggests sexualisation of young girls is very damaging to self-esteem.
3.20 HelenRazor: The idea of ‘self-esteem’ is one that is flawed + discredited by many social theorists. You’re arguing in predictable circles.
3.20 HelenRazer: Frankly, I can’t argue with your reasoning as I find it rooted in suspicion rather than logic. This can’t end well.
3.20 FelicityMoore: Helen, so far most of your responses have ended with “Nick off”. I’m just chatting, dude. *shrug* Someone’s in a mood.
3.21 HelenRazor: I am going to block you now because I really don’t want to be served re-heated half-baked arguments. Bye.
3.22 HelenRazer: Please leave me alone. I have written a piece with which you have chosen not to argue. Enough
And then I was notified that she had blocked me.
So… what do you think? Was I crazy, aggressive, rabidly hostile bitch refusing to entertain others’ views?
I also gained several followers after she blocked me. And then I saw this tweet from @thegreenrat: “I’ve been blocked by Helen Razor, after agreeing with her post, which is weird. This bothers me more than it should”
Oh-kaay then Helen. That is certainly unusual behaviour.
I also read this tweet from Helen: The question should be “You fucking idiot parents. Why aren’t you more concerned that some kid in China made those hot-pants?”
She doesn’t think much of parents, does she? Perhaps that’s where her hostility toward me stemmed from? I’m a parent. *shrug*
For what it’s worth, in parts I do agree with her. And for parents who don’t like Target clothes, we can easily shop elsewhere (although I am a regular Target shopper and love their leggings and tops range for Miss 4). And as for our ‘tween daughters leaving the house in inappropriate outfits, I agree with Wendy Harmer’s point: “Where do you think you’re going dressed like that, young lady?”.
Anyway, Helen Razor has 7000-plus followers who like her particular brand of logic and … debate. Live and let live, I say. And I don’t think it’s true that the Triple J years were the best of your career, Helen.
Hi Felicity
I think Helen Razor is a very sad voice on the interwebs. I used to adore her when she was on Triple J with Mickey Robins. Every single morning before school my sister and I listened to their show. This was back in my teens. Possibly I’ve grown up since then or she’s become old and bitter.
I’ve been watching her arguments on Twitter and on various blog sites like JustB and I think she comes across as angry and mean. Her anti sponsored blog ranting and that terrible supposedly satirical blog she’s set up are mean-spirited and unnecessary.
Although I’ve wanted to, I haven’t engaged in any conversation on Twitter or commented on any of her articles because I’m too scared of the bullying responses she often seems to give commenters that disagree with her.
I don’t think you were aggressive in your conversation with her at all. You were showing a different perspective and she didn’t like it.
Anyway, I just wanted to say I agree with you. I hope she doesn’t read this because I’d hate to get any flack back from her on my blog. She scares me!
V.
Thank-you Vanessa, I appreciate your bravery! I agree, she’s scary, largely because she’s so aggressive and hostile. I’m pretty sure you’re safe from her wrath here. She blocked me so it’s highly unlikely she’d seek my views on my blog!
It’s a shame she’s so off-putting because I think some of her ideas are interesting and worthy of serious conversation. *sigh* Ah well, we live and we learn, don’t we!
Err… seems I was wrong! She’s here! On my blog!
Grow a pair, V.
Bully.
LOL. I meant ovaries.
Yes, bullying, and also expressing the highly odd sentiment that to be without testicles is to be less than.
Certainly a revealing comment for somebody with Helen Razer’s pretensions.
I remember also being bemused the first time I was blocked by someone I thought I was engaging appropriately on twitter.
I was also blocked on a Facebook page for asking a second hand furniture trader if the children’s furniture they were selling either complied, or was exempt, from Australian Standards.
I’ve been blocked by ‘celebrity’ people in the past for daring to question them too. I feel that many of these people are on the internet only to have their ego stroked by all those people that want to get on their good side, who tell them how wonderful they are, and agree with everything that they say or write. As soon as someone disagrees, they block them and prevent them from being involved in any ongoing discussion. After all, they don’t want any dissenters causing dissent amongst the ranks, right?
It’s a type of censorship. You either toe the line and stroke their ego or your voice will be blocked.
You’re better off being blocked by them. You don’t need to be aggravated by their immature, egotistical writings. Now you can spend more time with quality people that write quality material, and don’t mind intelligently engaging with their community.
How is this different to wanting approval from people on the internet?
You shouldn’t really want approval from people on the internet Mary. Many of them are crazy bullies. But if you do, that’s your boat to row. Good luck with it.
I think “former” celebrity is more appropriate in this case. And you should probably include “minor” as well for accuracy’s sake.
Helen Razer is one of the wittiest writers I’ve had the pleasure of reading. She’s funny
Outside of all this self-righteous mummy business, kids that age don’t buy their own clothes. You get to control what they wear. If you don’t like it, tell them no. That’s your job.
Cheers
The nuns forbade me from wearing shiny patent leather shoes. It didn’t save my soul.
“Self-righteous”…? Not sure who among us is self-righteous, but I can certainly spot a self-righteous comment!
Part of the problem seems to be – both with Helen specifically and the public debate in general – is that we haven’t specified exactly what “kids that age” is. How old are we talking about – 5 and 6 year olds or 12 and 13 year olds? The debate is framed entirely differently depending on the age of the child.
It’s only part of the problem, mind.
I believe Helen has some interesting views, but putting a view in the public domain and expecting people not to want to talk to you about it is unusual behaviour. And then blocking them when they do, is even more unusual.
In my opinion she completely overreacted and behaved somewhat bizarrely with me. *shrug* The Twitterverse is a very big place. I’m sure we can coexist without too much difficulty!
That wasn’t a self-righteous comment. That was unfair of you. I also think that you think that writing ‘shrugs’ and using smiley faces mean you’re automatically being friendly. It doesn’t. If you’re going to be defensive, that’s fine, but own it.
Word.
The annoying *shrug* and smiley face would be enough for me to block.
Go right ahead!
Preaching to the converted here Johanimal – I feel the same way about white middle class Australians who use American gangster slang such as “word” .
You tried to wear patent leather shoes as a schoolgirl? How strange of you.
Do you have kids Lisa? If so you too can be forgiven some self-righteousness. It’s hard work, complex, demanding, and carries a extreme level of responsibility. Not as much as an undergraduate Arts degree assignment or googling “logic” mind you – then you can get really self-righteous.
You just made all sorts is assumptions about me.
See what you did there?
Just out of interest, how old do you think I am and what do you think I do for work (paid or otherwise)? I reckon it’s hard to guess, but you just managed it somehow…
Actually, Flick, your passive-aggressive** tweets and invocation of the personal register without directly addressing Helen’s arguments (which she persistently reminded you were laid out in the original article in question, and therefore that she didn’t want to repeat in her Twitter feed) in her response tweets to you – show your inability to form a cogent argument.
There’s no resentment for or jealousy of you “because you’re a parent” – Helen was simply impatient with your responses because you only seem able to ‘argue’ from emotion (what you personally feel about the issue) not by forming cogent responses to the arguments Helen presented in her piece.
She didn’t stop engaging with you because she’s jealous of your status as a parent or because she doesn’t understand that life choice, she stopped engaging with you because you simply don’t know how to do so in a way consistent with the logic of argument.
There’s many thousands of years of writing on logic. Google is your friend.
Hope that helps.
**See what I did there? Seeming to be ‘engaging’ or ‘friendly’ (like your use of smiley emoticons) while actually being dismissive = passive aggressive, emotionally immature behaviour.
What a role model you’ll be.
Lots of assumptions in your comment, Ruby and you know what they say when you assume!
I don’t assume Helen is jealous of my parenthood status. Evidence points to the fact she hates parents. Different.
Cogent argument…? Like the one you’ve constructed here?
o-kaaaay *shrugs*.
By which we mean: where is this evidence of “hatred”? That’s some fairly unambiguous language in the parentheses of smiley-faces, there, Flick.
You are correct Rubydoomsday, Twitter is no place for a polemicist such as Helen Razer.
12 and 13 year olds will be pushing the envelope. It’s their job. Four and five year olds will be under your control. Either way, you still hold the purse strings and get to guide them. If target is selling something you don’t like. Don’t buy it.
I don’t think I’m self righteous. But I reckon if you all just exercised sensible consumer choices, it wouldn’t matter.
Are there mothers in you community dressing their children inappropriately? Do you believe the responsibility for this sits with retailers?
Anyone who wants to speak as a mother about this?
Felicity. To be clear. It was not intellectual cowardice that led me to remove you from my Twitter feed. As aforesaid, I really just wanted to avoid seeing the same argument reproduced in my timeline again and again. I understand that you feel passionately about this matter. Your views, however, are so broadly canvassed by other thinkers – including Concerned of Port Macquarie – that I feel a strong disinclination to read them. In short, it was not my aversion to a challenge that compelled me to block you. It is my aversion to predictability.
Finally, I think Twitter is a silly place to argue.
Hi Helen,
I don’t recall accusing you of intellectual cowardice. I do recall saying, repeatedly, that I think your ideas are interesting, although your point about children’s clothes is also so broadly canvassed and is actually the mainstream view. Which is why those clothes are manufactured and why Target has no problem finding a market for them! Ironic, isn’t it.
Anyhoo, nothing fruitful will come of our back and forth. We’re on opposite sides. I think you were rude and overreacted. You disagree. We’ll leave it at that.
With unfeigned respect, Felicity, if “to leave it at that” was you most sincere wish, then perhaps a blog post was not the best possible idea.
Ah, touche. And if you truly wanted to block me and my opinions from your life you wouldn’t be here…
I am here for two primary reasons, Felicity. Well, three if we count the fact that I am fairly petty-minded and find this post an object lesson in hilarious passive aggression. Shrugs. Smiles. O-kaaaay. Wink. Exclamation point. Hugs.
First, I am very keen to restore meaning to the word “irony” and encourage you to refresh your understanding of this mauled but useful term.
Second, when one is charged publicly with actual “hatred” of a group of people as I have been here, it is both natural and professionally advisable to defend oneself against that charge. I do not “hate parents” as you have unambiguously suggested. I “dislike” flawed reasoning. There is quite a difference.
I drew the inference that you hate parents when I read this: “You fucking idiot parents.”
Seemed pretty strong to me.
Worth pointing out, Helen. When things were going down this rocky path on Twitter, you blocked me and opted out of the conversation. And insulted me as well.
So a fragment of a Tweet itself ripped from the mooning of a broader conversation concerning a very particular group of people, viz. those parents vocal in their revulsion for a particular clothing chain, is “evidence”.
Nice work building that straw-man. And stating once more in print that I am guilty of hate-speech.
Feel free to give that comment its proper context, Helen. I write for a parenting community, so I’m confident others are keen to hear from you on that point.
^”Your”
After reading the conversation on twitter, my curiosity was piqued, who was this woman who accuses Felicity Moore of behaviour that warrants blockintg? I then read Helen Razer’s blog and while I disagreed as a parent, I also found myself agreeing on certain points. The conversation on twitter left me feeling irritated that both parties were not willing to expand on points that I had not previously heard in the Mainstream media. I agree that it must be exhausting or frustrating having to restate your point, but doesn’t that usually mean you were unclear in conveying it? Thank you for bringing up these points, but I really am a firm believer in the principle that if you have something to say, be prepared to stand by your statements, and to at least engage in those who choose to respond, to a reasonable point.
I’d much rather be reading information about issues that affect everyday Australians, and perhaps keeping behaviour on social media in a separate arena, but I guess that’s a separate topic altogether. BTW, i like emoticons!
I think on this point, I agree firmly with Helen’s point – Twitter really is a silly place to try and debate serious topics. The character limit is very difficult to get around, no matter how eloquent and erudite you are (as Helen is).
In all seriousness, I learned a couple of lessons – I really wasn’t as clear and concise about MY points as I wanted to be. (I think regardless of how nasty some commenters have been on this forum, their point that I could have been more precise and on-message is probably accurate). I also need to be a bit less dogged about engagement. If it doesn’t happen first go, no worries – move on.
And both Helen and I have blogs where our points are extensively expanded upon, so for those wanting more there’s somewhere to go! (And I like emoticons too and I don’t fall into the camp that sees them as passive aggressive, although there are plenty who do).
I’ve found that Helen actually loves parents. She just hates fucking idiot parents.
If you think she was insulting you when she said “fucking idiot parents”, it is quite apparent to which group you think you belong, innit?
Ah Ben, how touching you hunted down my corner of the internet to leave your stamp of nastiness. I’m quite disappointed though. This ‘stacks on’ comment from you is dull and uncreative. Unlike your snide Masterchef pieces, which, while cruel and destructive, at least have a sliver of creativity in them. Ah well.
“I’ve found that Helen actually loves parents …”
With some fava beans and a nice chianti, no doubt.
Also, stop blaming others for your inability to read for comprehension. And stop thinking that smileys make you seem cute.
Hey Ben, thanks for setting the national agenda on reality cooking shows mate.
Powerful stuff.
The way you hold up to ridicule people who are having a go, and who have been edited to fit a sterotype which almost certainly reflects nothing of their true personality is brilliant.
It’s important work you do, that for sure.
But where to from here? How to top these dizzying heights? I say go after the Young Talent Team. You’d be good at that.
Just to be clear, this:
‘”I drew the inference that you hate parents when I read this: “You fucking idiot parents.”’
… is evidence you don’t get logic. At all.
Just because a group of parents were being fucking idiots *in this instance* – and Helen called them as such *based on the current argument/context* – doesn’t mean she thinks ALL parents are ALWAYS idiotic. So it doesn’t follow, logically, that Helen “hates parents”.
If you say so. How nice for Helen that she’s got you riding in to explain her comments away. Ineffectively. Worried she can’t do it herself? I wouldn’t be. She’s far more eloquent and well, cutting, as befits her name, than your ineffectual blatherings.
To be fair, Flick, Ruby’s is less “blathering” than it is “statement with an unambiguous point”. I was not very good at logic when it was compulsory in first year, but it appears that Ruby (whom I do not know) remembers that you are performing an absurd extrapolation.
This formal fallacy is invalid logic and can be simply represented:
1. Some P are Q
2. Therefore all Q are P
OR
1. Some Parents are Fucking Idiots
2. Therefore, all Fucking Idiots are Parents
OR
1. Some bloggers are terrible writers
2. Therefore, all terrible writers are bloggers
None of these things is (a) true or (b) follows logically in the terms of your argument form.
It may also be worth mentioning, Flick, that in disagreeing with you, I am not disagreeing with all parents. I do not think you can represent “all parents” any more than I could.
And this restores my original impatience with your Tweets. You wanted me to understand “where mums are coming from”. First, how could you possibly hope to represent “mums” who are not you? All concerned mothers are individuals, right, and not part of some milky amorphous mass nodding in agreement?
Second, I genuinely do not believe that the fact you have reproduced qualifies you – or anyone else – to speak to this topic better.
If you had spoken to me initially in terms of logic and not “speaking as a parent” and *in* the terms of the editorial I had written, then we may have got to a place where both of us changed our minds a little and brought our new views to our respective communities.
As it is, you have called me a “bully” and accused me of hate-speech. I trust the extra traffic to your blog made your experiment in aspersion worthwhile.
Agreed Ruby … Helen Razer does write imprecisely.
I’m not sure it’s that you were “crazy, aggressive, rabidly hostile bitch refusing to entertain others’ views?”
What you’re saying kinda doesn’t make sense – well not to me anyway. And it’s all a big yawn anyway – you don’t effectively argue your point. In fact, what is your point? You don’t want your kids to dress in s-xy stuff? Limit their exposure to it, don’t make s-xy clothing available to them.
I think what Helen is saying is ISN’T there more important things to be worrying about than who provides what clothing to whom?? Of course abuse of children is a huge issue – but I’m not sure it is impacted by Target supplying short-shorts in kids sizes.
Just don’t buy Target clothes. Don’t go to Target if you have to avoid it. We can’t blame everything on everyone else. We have to take some sort of responsibility for how we raise our children.
Dear Mary, it’s as though you haven’t read a thing I’ve written. Never mind, it’ll be there for a while. Doubtless if you go back over it the penny will drop. Eventually.
Wow, I don’t think you could have missed the point of Helen Razer’s article more. Furthermore the arguments you are using are invalid. My child likes to dress up as a pirate and a lion, she leaves the house in such attire. Should I be worried this will effect her “self esteem” later in life because she can’t find a treasure chest or is a failure because she can’t bring an Impala down at speed with her teeth?
What is the beef really? There seems to be some kind of ulterior motive and no matter what Helen said on response you were going to push your agenda, arguing against the construct in your head and ignoring both the article and tweeted replies that were offered instead replying with oft baffling results.
I too would have blocked you for badgering unnecessarily and not leaving well enough alone. Your over trivialisation and need to blame someone else are saddening. People who grow up with emotional issues tied to sex occur for a wide expanse of reasons, none of which, I am certain are tied to the clothes they wore before they had a say in it. Do boys grow up to be sluts because of this? I grew up in an era of synthetic material based hotpants for boys and can assuredly say that any malfunctions that may manifest sexually have nothing to do with that.
Your argument is invalid.
One does not take the moniker ‘Razer’ without some intent. Helen has made a career of being abrasive and objectionable. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEQd6_g-55g
Enter at own risk.
Oh that was highly entertaining! Thanks so much for that little gem! I laughed and laughed. *wipes tears from eyes*
If this is the kind of enthusiasm you express at being presented with a transcript that led to someone losing their job, I’d rethink your right to throw around the tag of ‘bully’.
I have no idea what your intended meaning is.
That “interview” was revealing. Helen was passive-aggressive, and approached her subject with casual questioning. Exactly what she accused Felicity off. If I could just slip on my amateur shrink cap for a moment, I suspect that run-in with Berkoff left her feeling powerless and belittled, and to feel the opposite of that she tries to act like Berkoff, who had the power. So she objects to Felicity’s *shrugs* and *smily faces* (like Berkoff did with her “dear”) and aggresively demanded a Sherlock Holmes-standard of reasoned questions (like when Berkoff objected to the “tell me how great it is” line of inquiry). Like many before her, Helen has decided it’s better to be the bully than the victim.
Slightly apprehensive about writing this because I hate confrontation, but people block people they can no longer be bothered with. Seemed pretty clear that HR didn’t want to continue to engage with you on Twitter (possibly because you were not really arguing the same concepts), but you persisted after being asked to stop. Maybe learn to let things go (including this comment, because I’m not up for a fight either).
Oh dear, you didn’t want confrontation, but you couldn’t help yourself with leaving a comment, could you? You wanted to be part of this little fracas, to feel included, wanted to be part of the ‘stacks on’. You’re coming into my house and dumping on me and expecting me to say thank-you and give you a warm hug? You’re deluding yourself. And if you want warm hugs from Helen for supporting her case, good luck with that!
Hugsies
I’m mildly surprised and greatly amused that your attention to this has lasted this long. I confess, when I left the computer yesterday to pick up the kids from school I expected that, like me, you’d have bored of the whole thing and moved on. After all, your attention on Twitter was so microscopic before you blocked me and moved on! Then I turned the computer on this morning and saw so many of your distasteful and deprecating comments waiting to be published! Seems I was wrong about how much (or how little) interesting stuff you have going on in your life.
Flick. The “you must have no life!” argument isn’t really washing at this point. Pot. Meet the kettle who boils over to the point she turns Tweets into blog posts.
I am quite willing to admit that I am petty-minded.
Your stamina is fading. The “you too!” response is far from your best work.
Oh Helen, dear, dear Helen,
Here we are at the end of five days of tit-for-tat and neither of us any more informed on the other’s topic. A lot of energy expelled and not much has been achieved. Except that I have stood up to your bullying.
We all know what’s happened here. To recap: you took umbrage that a … mother *dared* to challenge your view. Your reaction was extreme – accusing me of being uncomfortable around sexually explicitly dressed little girls, the implication of that being horrendous and utterly baseless. You wrote, “Dude. If those kids make you uncomfortable then that is entirely your problem” not because you believed them, after all, how could you in just three minutes of conversation, but because it was inflammatory and shocking and you wanted to get rid of this person calling you to account. You wrote that because you’re a bully and wanted me to shut the hell up and go away. Then, without any provocation, announced you were blocking me. That’s ok, that’s your right. I’m not cut up about it. And as we’ve well established by now, you’ve blocked people even when they agree with you! So it’s just another example of bizarre behaviour from you in an increasingly bizarre narrative.
Then I had the temerity to publish the account, exposing your bizarre behaviour to anyone who cared to read it. And for which you have had no reasonable defense, or at least none that you’ve put forward. Oh the audacity of me!
So, you stepped things up a notch and sought me out to deliver your own brand of nastiness up close, from which I would surely shrink and scuttle away, suitably chastened. But that hasn’t really gone according to plan either, has it? Here I am, standing up to your revolting barrage and refusing to take a backward step.
In the highly unlikely event you’re interested in anyone else’s views, especially when they differ from your own, I’m going to take one final shot at explaining where and how you so significantly missed some important points in your Crikey hack piece.
Your Crikey piece was indeed interesting, in as much as I’m now stuck with pictures of you in fireman’s pants that I can’t get out of my head. Thanks for that.
I’m going to explain to you the point(s) that you misunderstood, or just completely missed, when talking about mothers and their fears about daughters in sexy lingerie.
You have focused on the girls wearing the clothes, instead of what the issue actually is, and that is why girls *want* to wear the clothes and other worrying behaviours that go along with wanting to wear the hot pants and fishnet stockings. The clothes are just the symptom, Helen.
When you wrote: “It’s important to remember that kids just see cloth and it is we who see meaning” you demonstrated in big neon letters, your lack of experience in this area. When an eight-year-old girl wants to wear fishnets and hot pants, not because they are comfortable to climb trees in, but because she wants to look sexy for her boyfriend I think we can assume she sees meaning, more than just cloth. Kids see the clothes as signifying a level of adulthood to which they aspire, but that we as parents know they are not ready. So we say no. And no, and no, and no, and no, and no, and no. For the next 10 years we say no. Every now and then we flag, and we wish, just for a minute, that these bloody clothes didn’t exist so we could have one fewer battles in the morning.
“Premature sexualisation is linked with serious mental health problems like eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression.
Sexualisation puts girls in danger. It contributes to exploitation and violence against girls and women. It increases sexism, sex bias, and sexist attitudes.”
There is a great raft of evidence to suggest sexualisation of girls is dangerous to the community as a whole, and to girls in particular..
I understand why you didn’t get any deeper in your “analysis” of the issue because you’re not a mother and are missing a crucial level of experience in the matter. You’ve read about it, got self-righteously and pompously outraged about these “fucking idiot parents” and put pen to paper, so to speak. But you’re only half informed on the debate. And here’s the thing. I’ve been without kids and I’ve been with kids and I know a few things that you don’t. I know some things that you never really know until you have children.
Sure, you can imagine what it’s like. But you don’t know. You couldn’t possibly. And you just have to accept there are some things you can’t fake.
Any more than I can know what it’s like to be a gay person denied equal marriage rights. Sure, I can be angry and frustrated for the gay community and support their cause every way I can, but I’m not gay and I don’t know how it feels to be denied that equality. So if I write about the frustrating elements of being denied marriage equality I’m going to look a bit silly.
So when you’re not a mother you can’t possibly understand – even with that great big ego, I mean brain, of yours – how it feels when you see a retailer selling a completely useless garment like a bra-lette for three-year-olds.
You have no idea how hard it is for mothers who are fighting battles on 14 different fronts to raise their daughters properly – limiting the tramp clothes is one tiny bit of it – vetting the movies and tv they watch – which is a 24hr job that is relentless and I mean relentless – the music they listen, to the food they eat, the magazines they read, the friends they have, the hobbies they take up, the boys they meet and the places they go on the internet. All while tending to our other jobs like the other kids in the family, housework, husbands, bill-paying, doctor appointments, piano lessons, dance classes, part-time work, P&C meetings, making lunches, feeding the dog and blogging.
It’s hard and we love it. But we could do without your uninformed shit piling on top.
And this is a demographic that has done nothing to you. In fact, many of us, like me, grew up listening to you on Triple J with Mikey Robbins, back when you were funny and witty. But despite our warm regard for you, you’ve snidely launched your Sponsored Lady blog, taking mean-spirited pot shots at a community of mummy bloggers who really just set out to support each other and help each other tackle a pretty tough and very important job. Do you think you’re clever and funny with the Sponsored Lady? Hope so, because I think it’s lame. And beneath you.
You are contemptuous of parents – you know it, I know it, and certainly lots of parents know it. The wonderful little game of semantics surrounding your ill-advised “idiot fucking parents” comment that you sent me is just that – pedantic semantics. If you’re going to be snotty then be snotty. Own it. Don’t weasel your way around it. The Sponsored Lady is a snide poke at mums like me. From someone who has no idea what she’s talking about, or how hard our job is or how rewarding our job is. You sit on the sidelines and pokes shit. After all, you yourself wrote, “You haven’t *lived* until you’ve publicly rebuked one of those crazy chicks who bangs on about “the over-sexualisation of girls”. That’s me. I write about it a lot. As do lots of people, such as Danielle Miller who wrote an excellent piece. And we know there’s lots of evidence to give us reason to worry. But we’re all coming from an informed position. You are not.
So next time you feel like taking a pot shot at parents, whether “idiot fucking parents” or otherwise ask yourself – am I being a snide smartarse or am I just piling on a group of women because they’re soft targets?
Helen Razer, you call yourself a feminist but you’re a long way from any feminist I know. Someone who declares, “I see fashion magazine editors about as useful to the goals of feminism as a penis-flavoured candy bar” is clearly operating from a position far removed from reality.
One of the greatest feminists of our time is magazine editor Mia Freedman who has made the notion accessible and meaningful to women everywhere. And then there’s the doyenne of the modern feminist movement, Helen Gurley Brown, a magazine editor and someone who brought about great change. But these two women are redundant to the cause, according to you.
So you can’t be surprised when parents – me – discard your views as irrelevant and as coming from someone completely out of their depth.
I’ve listened to you rant and rave for days now and you’ve not said one interesting thing. Just some mean and nasty shit that makes you look a bit silly and quite a bit vindictive.
You blocked me on twitter after 10 minutes. I patiently listened to your crap for days and days, hoping in vain for some enlightening comments.
Don’t bother responding. I’ve had my fun and I’ve no interest in this dragging on and on… as it certainly seems likely to, given your limitless pettiness.
As for the two little minions who felt compelled to ride into the breach with Ms Razer, trot away little minions and follow your leader to the next troll party.
Helen, you’re not funny, you’re not clever, and you’re no great thinker. You’re bitter and irrelevant. And these past five days interacting with you have been a bit like seeing behind the Wizard of Oz’s smoke and mirrors and seeing a sad little man frantically trying to maintain the mirage.
FFS. Maybe contemplate this:
Should the face we show the world be the face we show our children, or should the face we show our children be the face we show the world?
*shrug*
After returning to Mzzzzzz Razer’s Crikey piece a few times, I feel she can be fairly mentioned in the same breath as the celebrated James Joyce, who’s novel Finnegans Wake is also inpenitrable.
i was blocked by catherine deveny for a similar reason, that is, i disagreed with her. i was also bullied by helen razer for disagreeing with her, which has lead me to smile at the following statement by helen during your exchange “All concerned mothers are individuals, right, and not part of some milky amorphous mass nodding in agreement?” because frankly if you want to remain unblocked by catherine or helen you most certainly need to form a “milky amorphous mass nodding in agreement”. i too was a great fan of helen, and catherine. but there must be something about middle aged comedy writers that turns them into insufferable bullies on twitter who demand their followers complete adoration and agreement. its actually quite cultish behaviour. i’d hate to cross either of them in real life. anyway i found this blog because i have just noticed that helen has mysteriously disappeared from twitter. not a trace of her left. i guess she must have realised that she was spinning out of control.
Had temerity to disagree w. Helen Razer so she put words in my mouth even adding quote marks, ordered me off her timeline & then blocked me – even though I’d never followed her in the first place. Oh, and she told me to grow up?! So the above comments I’ve just read are very similar to what happened to me. She is clearly not one to brook disagreement, even when one has been unerringly polite. A badge of honour indeed! From @ivorytowerjourn