LOL sexism in beer

I've tried to resist devoting any more of my time to writing about sexism in beer, partly because I don’t believe it is going to change any minds and partly because I'm bored of the subject. However, there have been some unpleasant and disturbing opinions aired recently which I don’t feel like simply ignoring.

Now, I know that often the people saying these horrible things are looking for a reaction. In some cases that actually seems like the main point for them - rather than having very strong feelings on the subject itself. On the whole I try to avoid rewarding attention seekers but it would be difficult to write this without referencing the sources.

This unfortunate series of events began with Mark Johnson's recent blog posts where he describes his experience of dating a woman who manages a pub, including an unsavoury episode featuring a brewery sales rep during the Manchester Beer and Cider Festival last month. 

NB It is interesting that while those who have responded negatively to Mark's posts refer to "racey pumpclips" and "seaside postcard humour", but they don't mention this incident with the sales rep - is that because they think it's on a par with offensive pumpclips or are they just pretending that didn't happen?

I noted at the time that Mark’s posts on this topic got a lot of attention (which is a good thing) but I wondered how much attention they would have received had they been written by a woman. I’m going to guess, based on decades of experience, that it would have been less. I wonder why that might be?

An additional report on the Manchester Beer and Cider Festival was posted on Tandleman's Beer Blog (in response to Mark's posts) which provided some useful additional context. However, it also provided a large volume of vitriol against anyone who would complain about objectification of women within the context of beer. You might think I would no longer be surprised by this. Well, the answer to that is yes and no.

I had a moment of genuine surprise at this comment from Nick about men speaking up about sexism. For a moment I wondered if it was a parody (a familiar response these days to anything seeming too OTT to be true) but no, I'm pretty sure it's the real thing - bizarre and outdated as it is.

Comment from Tandleman's Beer Blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...does she need him to protect her from racey pumpclips? Is that what feminism has led us to? Still the Man doing the dirty work?"  

Where to start with this one... how about:

-There was a larger issue involved than "racey pumpclips"?

-It's not about a woman being 'protected' from sexism by a man, it's about a man saying 'this is inappropriate and I personally find it offensive'? 

-Clearly you don't understand the quite simple concept of feminism? 

-It is neither a woman's job nor a man's job to do 'the dirty work' of saying that sexism is bad - everyone needs to do it?

This dated mentality - that the fight for equality is something that only women need to care about is totally out of step with the world we live in today. Sexism is not 'a women’s issue' (just like feminism is not only about women's rights). It won't go away until men take an equal responsibility for resolving it. In fact that is something else it has in common with Female Genital Mutilation (I went to a two hour seminar on FGM last week by the way, so if any of the mens expressing such great interest in the topic have any questions, hit me up).

But there was something in the comments which didn't surprise me at all. That tired old trope of 'but A is not as bad as B and if you don't protest B you aren't allowed to protest A' which gets wheeled out any time someone wants to shut down a valid argument without doing any work. The most familiar cliche is probably the one about 'charity begins at home', where if anyone suggests that wealthy, developed countries should help out developing countries someone will pipe up with, 'oh well, before we start helping out refugees, we should be helping homeless people in our own country first'.

This will inevitably be said by a person who won't put their hand in their pocket for charity, who has probably not given a second thought to the homeless except as a tool to use in an argument with someone they want to shut down. They don't actually care about either of the vulnerable groups mentioned, they are just using one as a shield against the other, thereby hoping to avoid having to help either one in the long run. When you stop and think about that it's quite disturbing.

Comment from Tandleman's Beer Blog

"When you consider some of the violence, discrimination and ill-treatment routinely meted out to women and girls, often under our very noses, getting worked up about a few sexist pumpclips does really seem like making a mountain out of a molehill."

 

So by the logoc of this argument we should not bother to do anything about objectification of women on pumpclips or sexist behaviour toward women in the beer industry because other bad things are happening to other women far away from here?

Wrong. We don't have to choose which offence is the worst and then accept every other offence as tolerable by comparison. That doesn't even make any logical sense.

This argument is a fallacy. For future reference, for the next time someone tries to roll it out, it is known as a fallacy of relative privation.

There is no limit to the number of things that we can disagree with and want to see an end to - because there is no limit to the number of things which people are made to suffer. If only there was.

FGM is an offense against women. So is sexism in beer. Both are wrong. Both need to stop. There is not a competition for which of them is the most wrong.

Here's another example of that logical fallacy for you from the same person on their own blog. Feel free to muse on the thought process behind this claim.

"Those who are more outraged by seaside postcard humour than the mass rape of underage girls"

Sounds a bit like a Daily Mail headline doesn't it? Can anyone explain to me exactly what the age of consent has to do with an act of nonconsensual sex? 

No. You cannot, because it is completely irrelevant. You don't consent to rape.

So why does rape have a qualifier in this particular sentence? The suggestion appears to be that rape of ‘underage girls’ is somehow more offensive than rape of ‘girls’ who are legally allowed to have sex? 

I honestly cannot read it any other way. I've tried to. I really have. Think about that for a minute...

This argument makes no sense because rape cannot be qualified in this way. There are not some types or instances of rape that are more or less acceptable than others. Age and gender are irrelevant. Rape is rape. 

If you think otherwise you are part of the problem.

Finally, here are two men turning sexism in beer into a joke and high-fiving each other for taking in women with their faux sympathy. When someone does that it tells me that they think feminism (AKA equality) is also a joke.

Yes, we all have more important things to worry about than offensive pumpclips but that doesn't mean we should tolerate them and not bother complaining when we see them. They are part of a wider problem. If you don't understand what this wider problem is then go back and read Mark's first post. He provides plenty of examples about things which happen to women working in the industry which are not ok. If you think these things are just 'banter' and nobody should complain about them then you are probably also part of the problem.

When people claim that they are not being sexist because it's just a joke they are trying to normalise sexism, to make it more tolerable and socially acceptable, i.e. they are trying to get away with being offensive under the guise of being 'funny'.

The joke's not funny though.