A brief round-up of some regular wankers

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that certain individuals find themselves in my sights from time to time, to the point where I consider some of them to have been made up specifically to piss me off. Today, they’re still being vastly irksome to me.

Nadine Dorries is still fascinated with women’s bodies

Nadine Dorries is better known for her obsession with uteruses, which resulted in me and others writing to her about their wombs last September. Her fixation on women’s bodies does not end at the uterus, though, and her other interests include what young women are doing with their cunts, her desire for control manifesting in a crusade to teach young women to Never Have Sex.

While the attack on choice was mercifully aborted, Dorries’s attempts to drag in mandatory abstinence education for only young women rumbles on. Fortunately, there is resistance to this. On 20th January, people will be gathering to protest this bill. If you can make this, please do.

Brendan O’Neill is still a weeping syphilitic chode

Brendan O’Neill, weeping syphilitic chode and alleged journalist has branched out from repeated, nasty sexism with a sideline in wishing abuse victims would shut the fuck up into declaring racism to be fine and dandy.  He reckons that yelling out racist words during a football match is “undiluted passion” and that political correctness is ruining football.  His conclusion? “I suggest we set about the urgent task of kicking these ‘anti-racists’ out of football,” he seeps.

I am getting quite a good insight into that chode’s psyche, and basically he seems terrified of two things: 1) that we live in a society where being a vile little shitbag is becoming increasingly less tolerated and 2) Victorian women. Seriously. His posts always include Victorian women running around suggesting he stops being such an unpleasant bellend.

While not strictly Victorian, I should very much like to set an irate Mary Wollstonecraft on him.

Stephen Moffat thinks anyone calling him out on sexism is a criminal

Now, I quite like Stephen Moffat’s work, despite the fact that he is rather sexist. The Moff himself, on the other hand, has added himself to my menagerie of nemeses by giving the following reaction to criticisms of sexism in his work.

“I think it’s one thing to criticise a programme and another thing to invent motives out of amateur psychology for the writer and then accuse him of having those feelings,” he said.

“I think that was beyond the pale and strayed from criticism to a defamation act.

“I’m certainly not a sexist, a misogynist and it was wrong.

“It’s not true and in terms of the character Sherlock Holmes, it is interesting. He has been referred to as being a bit misogynist.

“He’s not; the fact is one of the lovely threads of the original Sherlock Holmes is whatever he says, he cannot abide anyone being cruel to women – he actually becomes incensed and full of rage.”

Yes. Expressing concerns that Moffat might be a little bit sexist due to his creation of inherently problematic characters and saying some rather sexist things about a woman actor in Doctor Who is apparently defamation. It hardly helps his case that his conception of anti-sexism is a manifestation of benevolent sexism: getting angry because a fragile little woman has been attacked is hardly progressive, instead it merely reinforces the binary.

Like Brendan O’Neill, Moffat appears to consider calling someone out on sexism worse than actually being sexist, and this is just a dick move pulled by tossers.

Moffat, I think you’re a sexist. If you want to do me for defamation, bring it on.

6 thoughts on “A brief round-up of some regular wankers”

  1. I love how Moffat defends himself against allegations of sexism using a racist term (beyond the Pale). Excellent fuckitude maximisation there!

    1. Calling someone sexist is at least a very minor defamation of character, because it would give readers a negative image of Moffat, using only rather flimsy textual analysis to substantiate its claims. Then we have a commenter libelling him in a more extreme manner by falsely claiming that “beyond the pale” is a racist phrase. Pale in this phrase is used in the sense of a “paling fence” which historically demarked areas beyond which it was not permissible to go (Catherine the Great did famously enact a paling for racist reasons, but the phrase predates that by hundreds of years). Please do some basic research before flinging around very unpleasant accusations.

        1. No, I do not think the comment you linked to was particularly acceptable. Please stop now attacking and accusing ME. If you’d posted the comment you linked to and said something like “this is a sexist comment”, or “this is an example of the body policing inherent in the media”, I would have read it and thought “OK, that seems fair, albeit an incredibly minor example, it lowers my opinion of him slightly”, and then moved on in my sad trawl of the internet for opinions on DW related persons. Now I have a question for you: Do you think the comment above mine accusing him of racism (which is demonstrably false) is acceptable? If so, you’re libelling him, and as defamation is a criminal offence, you are (gasp!) a criminal, albeit an incredibly minor example. See how easy it is to fling unpleasant accusations around?

  2. Maybe someone should introduce O’Neill to Dorres. Maybe they would cancel each other out, like matter and anti-matter!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.