I HATE Jeremy Clarkson
There are some things that just need saying. I HATE Jeremy Clarkson. Phew, now I’ve said it. Maybe it seems harsh of me to single him out from a number of car show presenters and general public personalities. I feel he merits it though and I’ll tell you why:
Clarkson is not just a car show presenter, he’s the car show presenter. He defines the genre. For many years he’s been the driving force behind the way the television-shows-about-cars industry works. When he first worked on Top Gear in 1988 it was a show that mostly reviewed different cars and advised would-be buyers on the advantages and disadvantages of different models. When it was re-modelled in 2002 he was the main presenter.
Now even when the show first started it had a mixture of male and female presenters. The new version has always been 100% male - and for that matter 100% white and British. And the standard of the banter went with it. Cars that Clarkson doesn’t like are referred to as “gay” or “girly” - as though those were insults. Women are standardly referred to as “birds”. The focus of the show shifted from reviewing cars to frivolously taking pointless journeys, racing sports cars against military vehicles and aircraft and sometimes even destroying perfectly roadworthy vehicles.
As the environmental movement raised awareness of the impact carbon emissions had on the climate, the show could have incorporated advice on reducing emissions, on lower emission vehicles and emphasised that high-speed low-efficiency sports cars were the sort of things to be driven occasionally as a treat if you enjoyed that sort of thing. But with Clarkson at the helm of course that didn’t happen. We can only imagine that after all those years of being given privileged access to fancy cars and events he was so far in the pockets of the motor lobby that he couldn’t see the wood for the burnt stumps where once there were trees. Instead he started making insulting remarks about environmentalists. He bragged about breaking speed limits and complained at length about fuel and congestion taxation, which aims to cut emissions.
Now that in itself would be enough reason for some people to hate the man. I am not so quick to use such strong terms. I can sympathise that there is a market for that sort of misogynist, homophobic* planet-murdering prattle and someone was always going to step up to the plate.
The trouble is he isn’t just a (or the) car show presenter any more. He’s gone to great lengths to present himself as a spokesman for the white middle-class male adrift in a sea of political correctness. His website (and I know, I know, it’s a joke…) says “Jeremy Clarkson - Clarkson information, books, DVDs, forum, and news from Britains next prime minister?”. And if that’s just a joke, why have nearly 50,000 people have signed an online petition asking for him to become prime minister? He writes newspaper columns - and they appear in the political pages, not the motoring pages. His books include collections of poltical essays. The style may be “fun” and chatty to read but he’s covering topics like Basque separatism and war in Iraq.
The first article on the Top Gear website is clearly a 100% political piece written by him and titled “CLARKSON: Soon the annual tax bill for a commuter will be £10k”
Firstly that is a straightforward lie. Road tax on even the most polluting vehicles is £400 a year. If your commute goes in to central London (and if so why the hell are you driving!) you’ll pay £8 a day congestion charge (5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1960) and if your commute is 50 miles each way (then get the train! or at 8 miles per litre, 65p tax per litre, 5 days a week, 49 weeks a year = £1991) then that’s £4351 a year - less than half the number he is suggesting.
Secondly the whole point of increasing tax on higher emissions vehicles on unnecessary routes is to encourage drivers to switch to other means of travel and lower emission cars. He grumbles the cost of a tax disc on a Lamborghini Gallardo could rise to nearly a thousand pounds. But given the car itself costs £133,000, I think owners can afford it. And given it emits at least 325g of CO2 per kilometer (more than twice that of, for example, a Renault Megane or a Vauxhall Astra) my feeling is great, lets put the tax up even higher. No-one needs to drive a car like that.
Thirdly - and for the sake of my mental health I’m trying to limit myself to only looking at one of his horrible articles - the thing is littered with offensive remarks. The first sentence refers to a woman as “some bird”. He refers to a female politician as “some orange-haired old bat”.
Then he gets on with denying climate change. Now of course he never says it’s not happening, because it is. Instead he says certain events may not be a direct result of it. Sure, sometimes a freak wave gives you wet feet when the tide isn’t actually coming in - but when it’s up to your knees, best to fold up the deck-chairs just in case. People are already dying around the world as a direct result of climate change. There’s no probability about whether or not it’s happening, it is already happening, the uncertainty is how much worse is it going to get.
His conclusion on the cost of taxing so-called “super-cars” is this: “That’s not taxation. That’s rape.”. I won’t even say anything, I think it’s pretty obvious that’s not an appropriate thing to say.
And that’s on his car show website. So it’s not that he’s been “spotted” on his car show and asked to branch out in to politics - he’s actively choosing to use his car show as a platform for his political opinions. And here’s the real rub: It’s working! He’s kind-of accepted on TV as some sort of lovable right-wing not-afraid-to-speak-his-mind pundit. He’s on Have I Got News…, QI, even Who Do You Think You Are? as though he’s an institution that we’re all comfortable with in the UK.
But are we really all comfortable with vicious anti-environmentalism on the basis of lies? With misogyny and homophobia* from someone who is genuinely trying to influence policy-making in the UK? Personally I’d like to present the alternative point of view in a one-off BBC TV special called “Jeremy Clarkson: Who The F*** Does He Think He Is?”
* Actually he’s been pretty racist too, I’ll leave that for now, I think we’ve got enough to be getting on with!
Posted by Kate Smurthwaite on 26 May 2008, at 2:07 AM | Comments (53)
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Kirsty said:
I have never got why people want this man to be prime minister. He makes my skin crawl.
And do you know what Mr Clarkson? If you don't like speed cameras - don't break the law.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 8:06 AM
miriam said:
Clarkson's one redeeming feature is that he'll test something out and if it's proven to be correct he will use a newspaper column and all his public platforms to admit it. (c.f. the one on data theft)
And reviewing cars is political now. He does speak for a lot of men in the UK. This is not a good thing, but I'd rather Clarkson than the BNP. Clarkson does at least like to appear reasonable and can be made to change his mind and admit it.
As far as pointless journeys go, the recent series have improved - the Africa trip was about showing how unnecessary new 4x4s were in the UK, they used a black racing driver instead of the Stig, and they used old cars.
They also showed that a bike and public transport are faster than cars at crossing London during peak traffic, even over a 20 mile course.
As for environmental issues - while there is some climate shift (which is normal - we've had peaks and troughs through history) and it seems to be more than usual, some scepticism is usually a good idea.
He is however misogynist, racist, homophobic and an utter bojo.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 9:38 AM
Philippa said:
Yes, I think generally we are. Hence the 50,000 asking for him to be Prime Minister. I think another thing about JC is that he presents himself as a lovable buffoon, in which he is backed up by Hammond and May (pointing out that he cannot get in and out of a car he has just bought if it is parked in a car park because he is too tall, for example, at which point he spends the rest of she show crawling around under the door while the audience laughs and claps at his endearing eccentricity). And clearly a reactionary politician inside a lovable buffoon is something desirable in our society, viz Boris Johnson.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 10:28 AM
Feminist Avatar said:
Oooh, can we do 'have i got new for you next'. It does homophobia, racism, and sexism on a weekly basis. And why, why, why has there never been more than two women on a five person panel show??
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 11:28 AM
yeomanpip said:
Some of Miriams points are correct, but the shows presenters are not black or female, which is part of the point.
Of course, every so often they will have a token woman, POC, cyclist, walker etc but that is all they are.
I love QI, but, even that show can be misogynist sometimes, even when clarkson isn't there.
The main problem with Clarkson, and celebrities of his ilk, is that he is actively promoting racism, misogyny, gay-bashing etc because hes telling people that movements to make life better, fairer and safer for a lot of people are wrong, he's telling mainly men that we should go back in time, treat women like they're worthless, send foreigners home, and drive however we like.
HE IS WRONG.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 11:54 AM
Steve HS said:
OK, OK; calm down! Has anyone thought for one moment that Clarkson might just be perpetuating his own myth for marketing purposes?! He's created a brand and has to do whatever is necessary to sell the brand and keep it alive!
Yes - 'Top Gear' was run for a while like a boys' club and a bad one at that, but all that seems to have changed with a lot more female guests...
When my children were small, I went to the school to collect them one day and one of the mothers was wearing a t shirt that said; 'Who Needs Men When You've Got Chocolate?'. I went and had a t shirt printed that said; 'Who Needs Women When You've Got Beer?'. When I wore that to the school, I was nearly lynched!
Some balance please?!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 12:19 PM
Jess said:
Kate, I couldn't agree more. I'm trying to describe how I feel about Clarkson politely, but.. I struggle.
I think what really gets to me about him is his whole personality, political outlook and... um... person.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 12:49 PM
Jess McCabe said:
Steve HS: "Just" be perpetuating his own myth for marketing places?!
Frankly, it's worse if he's loudly espousing harmful positions he doesn't believe in to make money and build his career.
Posted on May 26, 2008 12:54 PM
Holly Combe said:
Cheers, Steve, for drawing it to our attention that Clarkson has been “perpetuating his own myth for marketing purposes” all this time. Who knew? I guess our head’s were so full of feminism that we failed to miss that, just like any other television star, Clarkson has a BRAND and must now do “whatever is necessary” to sell it and keep it alive. Pull the post, Kate!
Posted on May 26, 2008 1:25 PM
Steve HS said:
Jess - Maybe you're right to some extent, but doesn't everyone do that to a certain extent?! I don't know what you do for a living, but do you believe in everything your boss, company and colleagues say or do? I would guess not, but you still stay there and get paid, don't you?
Same for me! It would be nice to be THAT principled, but bills need paying...
I'm not always on Clarkson's side, but I think he deserves some latitude here..!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 1:25 PM
Steve HS said:
Holly! Sorry if you're offended by my pointing out the obvious... however, if others had your obvious insight, then the piece would not have been written in the first place.
How surprising though that your first resort is to request that the post be pulled rather that promote reasoned argument and discussion...
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 1:28 PM
Holly Combe said:
Steve! Sorry you didn't get my sarcasm! (Pull the post indeed. As if.)
In all seriousness, I think we can safely assume that Kate is aware of that particular nugget of truth about celebrities.
No offence taken, btw, but I reckon you knew that really, didn't you?
Re: "'Top Gear' was run for a while like a boys' club and a bad one at that, but all that seems to have changed with a lot more female guests." More female guests doesn't change the fact that, as Kate pointed out, it's an all-male presenting team now.
Those T-shirts sound tragic, btw. Both kinds.
Posted on May 26, 2008 1:39 PM
Steve HS said:
Holly...
You're right; when I re-read, I realised that I had missed the sarcasm.
You're also right; the t shirts were tragic! I thought I was being clever in making my point though!
And - bring back Vicky Butler-Henderson...
OK?! I'll run off to write my own blog suitably chastised!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 1:47 PM
Maia said:
Ahhhhh! Thank goodness for Steve. We need a menz to tell us all to calm down and be reasonable. I'm just so glad he could spare valuable time to give us the benefit of his objective, measured voice.
There was once a female presenter on Top Gear (think it was in the early nineties, but I'm not sure), but I can't remember her name. She adopted a kind of 'hello boys' approach and was always giggling and talking in a flirty, husky voice; clearly the only kind of female presenter the 'boys' could tolerate.
What I always hated was how they went on about how this or that penis extension (or car, as they called it) could go from nought to sixty in seconds. So fucking what?!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 2:00 PM
Kate Smurthwaite said:
There were several female presenters on Top Gear in the old version of the show - where Clarkson was just one of the presenters and it had what I owuld call a "magazine" format - basically not so much chat between presenters but more presenter A reviewing car X, then presenter B doing a feature on a particular aspect of motoring...
When it was re-vamped in 2002 it was Clarkson-led, he was the main presenter. Since then it has had only white British (actually English) male presenters: Clarkson, Hammond and May. And the format has been different - lots more chat and "banter" between the three presenters, much of it with this "laddish" - i.e. misogynist, homophobic tone.
Now the whole argument about whether or not Clarkson is just doing what the public want to make an honest crust: Firstly he is loaded, he definitely doesn't need the money any more, so there's no excuse on that front. Secondly if he were merely an actor reading lines someone else had written for him I would hold him a lot less (but still not totally un-) accountable for those words. But he's not. He writes his own stuff, as a presenter, as a columnist and as an author. If he turned round tomorrow and said "Global warming is a reality, we need to get out of cars and into hybrids, and public transport" it would signal the beginning of the end for the motor lobby. He is hugely influential and he must realise that.
And the idea that attacking him is the wrong approach and that we should just ignore him is all very well - but it hasn't worked over the last 20 years - he's become a bigger and bigger media figure and no-one has questioned that. Thank goodness for me...
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 2:46 PM
David M said:
Steve HS, I think you've taken a lot of flak over your comment about Clarkson just perpetuating his persona for marketing purposes, and I hate to add to it, but you might as well say "Of course Adolph is saying those things about the Jews, the Gypsys and the gays, but he's just perpetuating brand Hitler".
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 3:19 PM
Steve said:
Maia
I'm glad you appreciated my post. In fact, if you require some more measured objectivity, I'm available to you at any time; it appears you need it!
You're right about Vicky - she did appeal to the boys, but then that was the point, wasn't it?! If you can bear to watch the programme, take a look at the male/female balance in the audience. Shockingly, it seems that girlies like cars too! Whatever next?!
Kate was right about many things - the tone of the programme was far too laddish for a while and being a sensitive 21st century guy, I elected not to watch it for a while. However, in recent times it's improved and whilst not the bastion of all things feminist, I think it's hardly homophobic and misogynist!
At the end of the day, I like cars and motoring... If you don't (and you seem fairly het up about it), may I recommend the off switch? Or - you could get in a car one sunny day, drop the roof or open all the windows and have a nice drive through the countryside. You might even be able to take an episode of 'Top Gear' in the spirit in which it's no doubt meant!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 3:24 PM
Steve HS said:
David
You're right; I'm reeling from the onslaught! I can't agree with the 'Hitler' comment though...
We're talking about drawing comparisons between one of the worst human beings ever to have existed and Adolf Hitler...
Did I get that right?!
You know? I don't care anymore! I'm off for glass of Shiraz... anyone's welcome to join me!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 3:43 PM
Anne Onne said:
It seems it's precisely that which people like about him. He's like the ringleader in school, the one the other bullies look uo tp, because he'll go that one step further and say something 'naughty', and everyone else can go 'ummm, he said something bad!'. People look up to him because he does what they know is verging on unacceptable, being 'non-PC' has a rebellious appeal for some people, and it's always a convenient way to find scapegoats for things you don't like about life.
Clarkson's just a grumpy middle-aged man with no knowledge of anything interesting, (cars excluded), and nothing important to talk about, but his public grumbling from a privileged perspective seems to really appeal to people. It's worrying, but I hope that at least some of it is to laugh at the guy, kind of like how you might laugh at some old dinasaur who has really old-fasiouned views, but I'm not convinced.
Steve, the point is that some people like cars and motoring, but don't like homphobic, misogynist, pretty ignorant bigots like Clarkson. It's a complete non-sequitur to assume that if someone doesn't like the presenter of a show, they don't like the sujbect material, and just shouldn't watch a show. As a car-lover, shouldn't you be worried that people like Clarkson are turning many people off motoring because they offend anyone who isn't white, straight and male? Shouldn't you be worried that this reinforces the idea that cars are 'only for the boys' and women should shut up and let the men talk about cars?
If you want to be an ally to women, part if it is not throwing people different to you under the bus whenever we need changes to anything you're used to. It's easy as the group that is represented and not unsulted to say 'Clarkson's not that bad, you're overreacting, just don't watch the program'.
And BTW, Maia was being sarcastic.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 5:14 PM
Steve HS said:
Anne...
I've finished my wine so shall respond! I was of course aware that Maia was being sarcastic; her post was dripping in it! The trouble with the written word, eh?
On the main issue, you make a good point. I AM concerned that the guy is leading a team whose demographic is white, middle class and male. Indeed as I referred to above, I stopped watching for a while. However, the reason I referred to the 'off' switch was simple; this is the main motoring programme on television; there is no other real choice apart from Channel 5, so it's 'put up or shut up', me included.
And you're right about not throwing things 'under the bus' when change is suggested. But hang on! Let's get some perspective here!
We are talking about someone who presents a motoring programme and judging by the number of series recomissioned, is very popular; not just amongst men.
I'm not sure that I can't defend constructive feminism just by defending a TV presenter!
Clarkson - IMHO - does a great job. We all know what he's like and a good deal of us choose to watch. Do we want a reconstructed male feminist presenting TG? Change it and watch the programme die. Do we want Clarkson to change his views? Well, perhaps. But just because they're not aligned with mine, why should he? There's plenty of room for us all.
Being a man, I often miss the feminist POV. However, and I'm not just saying this, women make better pilots (I fly), are on the whole more careful drivers, are great social workers, fabulous doctors/surgeons and academics. They also make crap chefs and pretty dire motoring television presenters. It's been my pleasure to have great female bosses and terrible ones. Of the women who report to me, 50% are a pain in the ass as are the men.
Am I generalising? Of course... but if the author of the blog was allowed to get things out of perspective, I sure as hell am!
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 6:25 PM
Cath Elliott said:
I too hate Jeremy Clarkson. The best story about him is when his overweening arrogance was brought down to size earlier this year after someone hacked into his bank account when he printed details of it in the Sunday Times. He was trying to prove that people had nothing to fear from the loss of government cds containing people's personal information, but he was forced to backtrack when someone used his personal details to relieve him of £500.
Ahhh, revenge is sweet.
http://tinyurl.com/2udno7
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 7:21 PM
Rosie said:
"You're right about Vicky - she did appeal to the boys, but then that was the point, wasn't it?! If you can bear to watch the programme, take a look at the male/female balance in the audience. Shockingly, it seems that girlies like cars too! Whatever next?!"
I think that's the point though, Steve - it just goes to show the sexism in the way that the show is (or has been) produced. If the audience is made up of men AND women, then why have presenters that are blatently just meant to appeal to the boys (the male ones with their laddish 'banter' and the female one with her 'hello boys' approach)? It quietly gives out the message that this show is mainly just for the boys, and reminds the women viewers that they are only guests, only to be allowed into this boys' club as long as they obey the rules - be sexy and don't complain about the misogynist banter.
So of course this just re-enforces the idea that cars etc are "boys' stuff".
Sorry if this is all blindingly obvious to you. I was just confused as to why you were justifying the fact that this female presenter was rather sexual by stating the fact that there are women in the TG audience as well.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 8:43 PM
Ross Marat said:
Yes, he's slime. No doubt about it. The irritating thing is though, he's probably pleased that he's thought of as slime. It's a no win situation. :|
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 10:11 PM
Emily said:
"Being a man, I often miss the feminist POV".
You said it, Stevie.
But hey, fuhgeddabout these issues which are clearly bugging you so much. There are far better things to do and be in life than a sad internet troll trying to rile feminist wimmin. Don't give up, you'll find something! You might even be one of those gurning morons in the Top Gear audience one day.
Now, better put all that rope in a safe place before you hang yourself with it. We wouldn't want that to happen, ha ha ha.
Ha ha hahahah.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 11:08 PM
Anne Onne said:
Steve, to be fair, she's not suggesting Clarkson be wiped off the face of the Earth (though a decrease in the kind of comments he makes would be welcome). Clarkson is an adult, being paid a lot of money to express his opinions in the public sphere. We should always remember two things about freedom of speech: the first being that nobody is owed a public, paid forum to express beliefs, and can be sacked for saying something inappropriate, and the second that freedom of speech means we are within our rights to criticise the opinions someone else expresses, and what effect they have on society as a whole.
Clarkson is not an inconsequential figure, he is paid a lot of money and is watched by a lot of people. The very fact that he is so popular is a very good reason to criticise him openly, and examine the opinions he expresses. It's unfortunate that when a person gets popular, people decide that as some sort of 'national treasure' (this usually refers to some opinionated old codger) they are above all criticism, and whatever they way is sacrosanct.
I'm afraid we'll also have to disagree about the use of the 'off' switch. Since he IS motoring television, its doubly important that he is not made out to be some kind of right-wing saint, and that there is criticism of him.
The point is, as a man, and someone neither on the recieving end of his 'humour', nor ignored by those who program TV, it's much easier for you to put up with it than it is for some people. When that's the response women and minorities get for many issues, you might see why we get a bit sick of shutting up and putting up with it, just because everyone else thinks something's OK.
Besides, when men don't understand a feminist perspective, they don't do so because of some magic chromosome-related reason, but because they haven't fully examined the situation from the point of view of someone less privileged than themselves. If lots of women tell you they feel insulted and isolated because of the actions of a person, is it more likely that they are exaggerating or lying, or that perhaps, not being a woman, and being socially trained to ignore what affects them, you jsut aren't taking it seriously enough?
Besides, Kate's post reads as much as a lament that people like the guy, as a criticism of Clarkson to me.
Posted on 26 May 2008 at 11:27 PM
Nina said:
Jeremy Clarkson can't be defended because everything he is accused of is true. That's where you're going wrong Steve, there's no argument here. He's reprehensible and a complete arsehole and his politics are completely illogical and dysfunctional.
I love Top Gear though, I don't want it to be a more inclusive programme, that's absolutely not what it's for. I don't want all of the cultural literature in my life to have a perfect balance of women and men on screen or in text either, equal opportunities are totally desirable but more important behind the scenes on a show with only three regular presenters. I like the relationship between them as well, I think it's well balanced, competitive and absurd and very funny. I don't think they're like me, my politics aren't expressed and it's utterly inconsequential. I don't own a car because I believe in the environment and recycling but it's a TV show. I like it when they review cars that I could never possibly own because watching the Bugatti Veyron drive through Europe is wonderful and beautiful and awe-inspiring. I like Top Gear just as it is.
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 1:52 AM
Rhona said:
"I love Top Gear though, I don't want it to be a more inclusive programme, that's absolutely not what it's for. I don't want all of the cultural literature in my life to have a perfect balance of women and men on screen or in text either...I don't think they're like me, my politics aren't expressed and it's utterly inconsequential."
I agree with Nina, here: I am aware that Clarkson is a brash, unreconstructed idiot, but I find him, at times, entertaining (and I like cars, too!). Similarly, heros of mine such as Greer and Faludi will ocassionally come out with statements which literally make me want to eat my own head out of embarrassment - does that mean I have to ditch any good opinion of their work altogether? Humanity is, unfortunately, fallible at all times - however, that doesn't mean that we cannot listen (with the possible exception of anybody representing the BNP).
I also think it's somewhat inappropriate to leap down a man's throat when they attempt to offer an alternative viewpoint, particularly when they are commenting on a feminist blog. Is this not a friendly, open space to discuss and learn from one another's povs? I frequently disagree with several F-Word bloggers' points but I tend to take the opportunity to attempt to consider and learn from what they are saying, rather than totally disregarding it for not agreeing with my own opinion. Just a thought.
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 10:50 AM
Nina said:
Rhona, I think that everyone has the opportunity to respond to Steve just as they want to, which is one of the pleasant things about a space like this. We can't expect Steve not to express his opinion or anyone else to hold back when he does.
And Germaine Greer upsets me more than Clarkson because she's fallen one hell of a lot further.
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 12:15 PM
Cate said:
JC is a sexist bastard.
However...I still think he's really funny and is great at what he does. Between the stuff he says about Americans (we're all fat and inbred) and Women (don't even get me started) he makes me cringe pretty much every time I watch Top Gear, but the very next second he'll say something that makes me laugh out loud. I think he's a fantastic TV presenter and is entertaining to watch because he's one of those people you love to hate.
I totally understand and *get* why people hate him. I wouldn't go as far as to say I love the guy, but Top Gear is one of my favorite shows, and it wouldn't be the same without him.
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 12:38 PM
Anne Onne said:
Rhona, it's a hard balance, though.
In the end, an important part in visiting a safe space is privileged parties being willing to check privilege at the door, and not taking it personally when someone disagrees or points out their privilege. Male commenters have the rest of the internet where they can feel superior, or have their POV accepted as the right one because they are male, as well as the whole of the real world.
Personally I think it's especially important in a feminist space that whilst men are included, they aren't given special attention or aquiesced to, and that means that their opinions are treated to criticism same as everyone elses, and their privilege pointed out where it seems to affect the discussion.
Maybe it's because I have also frequented blogs where privilege is given much shorter shrift that I don't particularly see what is so inappropriate here. There haven't been any ad hominem attacks on men (other than Jeremy Clarkson), and commenters disagreeing have replied to what he said and added their own opinion. This is pretty standard feminist discourse.
Yes, if you present a non-feminist view, or some kind of atypical view for a feminist board, particularly if you're a man, you will be in the minority, and therefore outnumbered. That means that you will get a lot of replies and rebuffals, but that is part of disagreeing with a widely-held opinion. If we have to make an effort to play nice, and mollycoddle every man who comments, no matter how ignorant the opinion (not referring to Steve, but generally), we will be taking attention and voices away from women, whose safe space this was supposed to be.
The only solution is to encourage men to examine their privilege and realise they are not entitled to special attention, and that especially as men, being inexperienced in issues that affect women, they may often find themselves disagreeing, but should examine whether women have more experience in the issue, and not assume that they must be right.
Maybe it's because to me, a long reply is the biggest form of compliment, even if it's contradictory. It means they took your words seriously enough to think about and post a rebuffal. Sure, they might not have agreed with you, but it's not like they ignored what you said out of hand.
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 5:19 PM
Rhona said:
Anne, that's a good point - thank you for replying in such depth. Thanks also to Nina for responding. :)
Particularly liked this point - "Male commenters have the rest of the internet where they can feel superior" - quite right!
My only 'sticky point' here is on privilege, which I think is difficult no matter what - personally, I would be happier if no such issue were granted in any case, but hey, there's 2000 years of Western patriarchal history to butt against...*sighs*
Anyway, sorry for leading things a little off topic. Back to JC! :)
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 6:52 PM
Steve HS said:
Well; there have been a lot of comments. You know? I was getting a bit irked yesterday, but you've all got valid points. Apart from David and the Hitler comparison!
I'm also not entirely sure about the "Male commenters have the rest of the internet where they can feel superior" comment, as I don't feel superior at all.
What's genuinely surprised me is the almost universal loathing of JC. I had either not considered the offence he may be causing, or I simply took them as a way to stir up debate/shock/horror and/or to get a laugh.
Either way, I won't listen to his comments again without thinking of this post; so you've done your job there!
Good night all...
Posted on 27 May 2008 at 11:12 PM
Anne Onne said:
Rhona, actually that got me thinking a lot.
Privilege and how to address it is a difficult issue, precisely because inequalities exist. They are ingrained into the way people act and see other people, to the point where it affects what kind of equality we need to try and foster. That's why something that might look 'equal' on the surface might still allow the same power balance we are trying to avoid.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need safe spaces and a focus on women's thoughts over those of men, because there wouldn't be privilege and inequality. Men would have been brought up to listen to women's points of view, and not assume they are always correct, and women would have been brought up to be as forward as men, and each would respect the other's experience where an issue affects one more than the other. However, the society we live in is not equal, and tips the balance heavily in favour of some people over others. In order to help those that are normally silenced, we need to encourage a focus on the Other, to remedy the very heavy focus on the privileged that exists. I don't know if that makes any sense the way I describe it.
Steve, sorry, I thought I was making it clear that I wasn't referring to you specifically. I don't know you from Adam, so I can't say what you're like, except that you've been thoughtful and polite. But a lot of men, in real life and online, DO talk over women, and that's something we specifically try to avoid when creating a space for women to share their experiences. Men tend to control discourse in most spaces. Just watch a mixed group talking and see how often men interrupt women, or women stay silent when men are going on about something. It's not that women don't have an opinion (clearly they seem able enough to discuss it with no men around), but that in a mixed setting they are not encouraged to do.
Actually, Steve, your comment was interesting, because it was about privilege, even though you might not have realised it. When feminists talk about privilege, we don't just mean big things like walking out alone and not being raped or fearing rape or being blamed for your rape. It's also about little things like watching something offensive, but not being insulted, because it's people like you making jokes about people not like you, and you can just laugh it off because 'humour' is never focused on you, but on others.
Your reaction to Jeremy Clarkson is perfectly understandable as a man, because he is built in the mould of the 'bloke's bloke' persona, and since he didn't do anything to offend you personally, indeed lives up to an ideal men are told to aspire to, it is much easier to write him off as merely wanting attention and to cause a stir. Privilege in other respects is just like this. It's not men actively trying to get one up, but the fact that you just don't notice some things that affect other people.
I hope that isn't too much of a lecture.
I do agree, though, he does say things like that to cause a stir and get attention. But that in itself doesn't make what he does less offensive, because he still tramples over and insults oppressed people needlessly.
Posted on 28 May 2008 at 11:42 AM
Steve HS said:
Anne
Thanks for a very interesting post. It's true that in group interaction, some men do talk over the women in the group; although I hope not any group I'm in!
However - the point you made about being anti-feminist by omission IS true; but it's also true in many areas of life. We're all guilty of considering our opinions over other people's, but it's an uncomfortable truth also that by not considering the effect of what someone is saying, one may be grouped in with the speaker and his or her views.
It's so difficult - in fact nearly impossible - to consider the effect of what you are listening to on every person with every concievable view.
But - if we were consciously aware of it all the time, the world would be a much happier place!
Posted on 28 May 2008 at 2:19 PM
Holly Combe said:
Indeed it would but, as you suggest, that would be quite an achievement for anyone! I think all we can do is carry on paying attention to the issues of privilege and prejudice and try to challenge lazy generalisations whenever we can.
I know Rhona didn't mention any names but am guessing that my rather curmudgeonly retort to your initial comment may have been considered inappropriate. Though I would still defend my initial response, I do appreciate the comments you've made since then and agree with Anne that these have been thoughtful and polite.
As I'm sure we've all experienced, interpreting tone on the page can sometimes be a tricky matter and, *for me*, the way you asked if your point had "occurred" to us implied that you perhaps thought such a discovery would negate from the points being made in the article. I read your jovial "calm down!" introduction as an attempt to pitch your own take on the matter as The Rational One in comparison to Kate's. I also thought -at the time- that your reaction to those silly chocolate T-shirts had a whiff of "there's no such thing as patriarchy" about it. You seemed to be suggesting that the balanced view is that women can do and say whatever they like while men apparently "get lynched" if they attempt to retaliate against such tyranny. This struck me as disingenuous because
1) IMO, the chocolate-crazy female stereotype is not exactly empowering for women in the first place and
2) I've seen plenty of men wearing T-shirts with slogans about women on them and do not recall any of them getting verbally set-upon by hoards of angry women
All this prematurely set-off my troll alarm and that was what led to the sarcasm. (In my experience, communicating with trolls in a decent and fair-minded fashion is often pointless because they don't really seem to want to engage in debate and will tend to simply repeat the same inflammatory generalisations without addressing anything anyone actually says.)
Anyway, I’ve now read all your comments in the thread and appreciate that I could have given you the benefit of the doubt :-)
Posted on May 28, 2008 8:52 PM
Steve HS said:
Holly
Thank you :-). It's good to be recognised for not being a complete ass!
I really, really do not want to appear crawly here, but at the risk of doing so, I've actually learned some things from these comments that will definitely make me think in the future...
Dare we wrap this up by thanking JC for causing all this fevered debate in the first place?!!
OK, OK, I'm off....!
Posted on 28 May 2008 at 10:51 PM
Morte said:
Okay, personally I agree to a large extent on Clarkson, and have always disliked his arrogant and bigoted personality. (Even though its obvious its often played up for no other reason than its what he is renowned for by a lot of people, like my Mum, who hates him, but loves James May). Unfortunately, I happen to find many of the things Top Gear do to be very funny and exciting, and generally have to ignore him (particularly when its obvious he "wins" the challenges, when its clearl that was the intended outcome).
Generally what Im hear for is to question why, in England, its such a problem to have three white English men presenting a tv show? I mean seriously, what the fuck? I by no means want women or people who arent white off the television, but is anyone really so fucking petty as to see a show and want it changed simply because its three white English blokes presenting it? As an English white bloke myself, Im pretty insulted that its considered a problem that they are English white blokes.
And just to clarify, while I by choice have nothing to do with feminism, I certainly dont have a problem with it either, so Im not hear because I want to "shut you bitches up" or any of that horse shit you probably get sometimes.
Posted on 30 May 2008 at 4:08 PM
Holly Combe said:
I don't think anyone here is saying that having a programme presented by three white men is a Bad Thing as a matter of principle. However, it has to be said that this exclusivity is combined with Clarkson's "bigoted personality" and the fact that they are presenting a show about a topic that is stereotypically seen as a blokey one. No-one is saying "ban Top Gear because it's an all-white, all-male team!" but I do think the set-up is worthy of feminist critique. One reason for this is that the Top Gear team are positioned as adventurers and experts and this reflects an age-old macho white male stereotype. That doesn't mean there isn't a wider range of adventurers and experts out there but this is not reflected through equal representation in the public eye. A common retort here could be that this is simply so because of genuine preferences but, at the very least, I would say that ignores the "horse shit" that, yes, we do get plenty of!
I would suggest that it isn't "petty" to care about fairness or want to address inequality but that it can certainly seem that way if you're part of the group whose privilege is being challenged. Could it be that you are insulted because, "as a white English bloke" yourself, you sense that your position in society, as part of a group traditionally framed as dominant and leading, is being challenged? Just a thought.
Okay, so you don't want "women or people who aren't white off the telly" but what exactly is your point here? Surely only the most openly bigoted individual would come right out and say such a thing (i.e that they want whole groups of people off the telly)? Isn't prejudice generally more subtle and complex than that?
I'd be more interested to know what you think about how "women or people who aren't white" are represented in the public eye. I realise there are plenty of foolish representations of white men in the media but look at the lauded leaders, experts and masters and I think you'll find that the majority of these tend to be white men too. (This is a side-point but, IMO, those Foolish Man representations tend to either serve as a patronising consolation prize for those with less power -i.e a "joke" that men are expected to take out of a sense of smug chivalry- or a way of diverting people's attention away from the need for feminism.)
In my experience, we tend not to be able to appreciate our own privilege until we are challenged about it. I would suggest that not wanting to take "women or people who aren't white off the telly" altogether doesn't automatically prove that you wouldn't actually prefer for white men to be in charge of it. It also doesn't indicate whether or not you would prefer for white men to do most of the impressive stuff. Again, this is just a thought because, to be fair, I don't know you.
Posted on May 30, 2008 7:27 PM
Morte said:
This isnt about my privilege being challenged, as its difficult for me to “see” my privilege most of the time. Okay sure, Im not so stupid I cant see stuff like that abysmal problem about rape, and victim blaming that many women might face, or other problems like that involving sexism or racism. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that like anyone else I struggle for money and have a shitty life for the most part. My “white male privilege” doesn’t mean a flying fuck most of the time and it would be no fucking consolation telling myself Im trying to “fight against it”. Its also hard to see how Im supposed to have the “dominant position” in society, at least from where Im “standing”.
Its a problem that representation is poor on tv unless you’re a straight white male, I can sympathise with that. Can you sympathise with the fact that Im not always going to want a show that I like criticised because of that fact? I don’t want white men to dominate tv in terms of control and representation. I would think that just because I don’t support feminism like it’s the road to solving all mine and everyone else’s problems, you automatically assume Im a no good person. Is the fact that Im not with you mean Im against you feminists? Again, this is just a thought because, to be fair, I don't know you.
Posted on 30 May 2008 at 9:07 PM
Holly Combe said:
What you say about struggling resonates for me because I react in a similar way when my own privilege (as a white person) is highlighted. But just because it is difficult to see doesn't mean it isn't there. In answer to your question, no, I don't necessarily assume you are against feminism because I don't think boiling everyone's positions down to "with" or "against" is a helpful way to address inequality. As you have indicated above, there are plenty of ways in which you could be considered to be with feminists but that doesn't mean I don't take issue with much of what you say.
I certainly don't think I gave any indication that I assume you are a no-good person!
Posted on May 30, 2008 9:26 PM
Anne Onne said:
It's not a problem if one show has three heterosexual white men presenting it. However, if nearly all shows are presented by white Anglo-Saxons, and if nearly all of those are men, then it IS a problem, because it does not represent all the people (the majority) who are not male or not white, or not het.
Privilege is also having 'witty banter' channel Dave aim itself squarely in your direction, as if witty banter can only happen in a white heterosexual male context, and is only for the consumption of white heterosexual males.
I sympathise that it's hard to see privilege, but that's why listening to those who don't have it is important, and thinking hard about what they say. Because more often than not, when they say there's a problem and you haven't thought of it, you don't see it, but it doesn't mean it's not there.
And not wanting a show that you like criticised, even though you know it's far from perfect is a bit childish. Sorry, but no matter how wonderful a show is, some people won't like it. And if there are very real reasons to criticise a show, you'll have to learn to live with the fact that not everyone will like it.
Yes, we like things that are far from perfect, and far from feminist, too. So i sympathise, but you shouldn't blame people for having a different opinion to you, or for pointing out a problem you couldn't see because you are privileged. It is tough, because you want the things you like to be good and ethical. But recognising their limitations means that you shouldn't be angry or defensive towards anybody who criticises a show you like for something you know to be a failing. It's a hard skill to learn, learning to not be defensive any time people like you are criticised, or things aimed at you are criticised. You have to realise the criticism isn't of you directly. We don't hate white men, we wish that the whole world was not aimed at them, or set up to give them special favours.
I'm surprised you come here caring whether we think you're a good person. Especially since you stated you're not into feminism, I'm quite surprised you'd care about what a bunch of people with beliefs very different to yours would think.
You haven't presented truly trollish comments, however, so whilst we won't consider you a feminist scholar worthy of admiration, I don't think aynbody would consider you an evil person. Misguided maybe, but you probably think the same of us (doesn't everybody secretly believe they are right, and everybody disagreeing with them wrong, anyway? ;) )
You don't need our approval, and you're not going to get it. For a start, acting as a decent human being, and politely disagreeing shouldn't be noteworthy, its what we all deserve. That said, I'm not against smiling encouragingly at people taking the plunge into a difficult area, and examining privilege is just that. Something that needs time and work, and we get better at with training. It's also like giving up smoking. You really need to want to become a more open, listening person to do it. Halfheartedly deciding to kind of quit and kind of want equality doesn't really work, since even dedicated people slip up.
We're not here to make moral judgements on other people (you must have us confused with The Mail!), and it's up to you to believe what you believe. If you publish an opinion here, you'll get critique and replies, but that's the same for everyone, and it would be focusing on the words rather than what kind of person you are.
I don't know if that's going to come accross as hostile. I want to encourage you to continue, but try and point out that feminism is self-service, and needs a bit of a thick skin. A lot of feminist areas are quite full on to new commenters who ask obvious questions, and I want to warn you that it's not because feminists think you're an evil person (I don't think most believe in evil, anyway), but simply that they are concentrating on womens' issues, and on working to make life better for women (and by extension for men) by ending the patriarchy and gender expectations. Most of them deal with a lot of crap from male commenters, and it's not up to them to sift through all of the comments to find the odd one who may want to change. Feminism is rather self-service that way.
So good luck, and please don't take it personally. It really isn't about you.
Posted on 30 May 2008 at 10:27 PM
penelope loom said:
Don't moan - take action. Every time I see a pile of Clarkson's books in a bookshop or supermarket or even a garden centre (?????) I turn them so that the spine doesn't show. Or I put books by another author in front of them. Or turn them upside down and bury them under other 3 for 2 offers. Or all three. It feels very satisfying.
Posted on 31 May 2008 at 1:58 PM
Claire said:
Penelope: that isn't taking action. You're just making the staff members' jobs more difficult when they can't find those books quickly because you've been messing with the stock.
Posted on 31 May 2008 at 4:51 PM
Tony Smith said:
I'm a fire-fighter from Manchester. I now have a job in community safety, which involves working with young offenders and giving talks in schools. Part of my remit is to educate young people about car crime and responsible driving. There are approx ten deaths and ninety injuries everyday on the roads in Britian, which has a terrible impact on so many families.
Clarkson must have some influence over our impressionable young people. If he acted more responsibly, it would make my job easier.
I agree with everything that Kate had to say. Not just from a road safety point of view, but also because he has a total disregard for the environment. Whether you agree with the global warming theory or not, just imagine for a few moments that we lived in a world without cars....... woudn't it be a much better place.
Posted on 08 June 2008 at 7:35 PM
Elizabeth said:
Hi all! I'm going to make a very shallow and 1 dimentional point: I too CRINGE whenever I see or hear Jeremy Clarkson. We see Top Gear here in New Zealand too and at first I thought his humour was funny, dry etc. and watched the show. HOWEVER I was very quickly put off it because of the fact that he's so blimmin confident and arrogant when he's middle aged and unnattractive. I know that sounds cruel, but if he was a woman he'd be hounded for being old and unattractive or somethin equally shallow about his physical appearance or age and yet we have to put up with seeing him so sure of himself, full of sexual innuendo and all coming from his nasally voice and ugly mug. *shivvver* I know that sounds insensitive but I have TOTALLY had it up to **HERE** with so many messages aimed at women not to be unattractive or ageing, yet a bloke like him can not only get a job in the first place, but be up on a pedistal (self appointed or otherwise) and SO cocky. Over here, I think our culture is even more one-sided than a lot of places with our "Kiwi Bloke" type role model for men. Here, we are constantly reminded how blokes are allowed to be gross, loud, immature, overweight, badly dressed, old: and still be loved by society while all women have to be sexy, seductive and young. Who's fantasy is that? Certainly not mine. He just TOTALLY winds me up in the same way, I get the feeling most of the women that are ever invited on that show are only there because theyre sexy. I'm sorry to put forward such a seemingly juvenile reason for loathing him but the day 'unattractive' or 'older' women have equal visibility in the media to their 'unattractive' or 'older' male peers, I'll stop hurting about the appalling double standard I guess.
Posted on 19 June 2008 at 10:54 AM
Maia said:
Clarkson! New Zillun sounds a blimmin awful place.
Posted on 19 June 2008 at 3:16 PM
Aimee said:
It's kind of interesting that you notice your use of double standard, but that doesn't excuse it, in my opinion. Without trying to sound harsh and critical, how is berating Clarkson for being 'old and ugly' any different from mentioning the same of a woman? It's pretty hypocritical, really. I mean, what do you expect the man to do? Look in the mirror and resolve to be depressed and withdrawn because he doesn't adhere to stipulated male beauty myths? I can't quite understand why this facet of his personality makes you angry? Yes, he's a tosser, but that has nothing to do with appearance. As a woman, I don't want to be lumbered with a generic classification, and as such, I won't do the same to men. Saying 'all men are this' is just as bad as saying 'all women are that', privilege or no.
Posted on 19 June 2008 at 7:55 PM
Aimee said:
... and whilst I do see your point that there is an appalling double standard in this regard, we should be bringing ourselves UP, not bringing men down. Women should be free to be loud and fat and ugly and arrogant and boistrous without the inhibitions of gender encroaching on that right. Not that men AND women should be equally concerned about how young and sexy and nubile we are. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean it to. I just think if we're striving for equality, we should put it into practise.
Posted on 19 June 2008 at 7:58 PM
Elizabeth said:
Hi Aimee. Yes I totally agree with you. I feel exactly the same, that NONE of us should be controlled by such shallow appearance or age related criteria. It's just that I never see or hear the viewpoint bringing ordinary women up...only constant messages bringing us down: telling us we have "unsightly wrinkles", "embarrassing scars and blemishes?", terrible "7 signs of aging", ugly cellulite" and the only women you see presenting are beautiful while there are plenty of men who are up there, valued even though they are not. (Which if course is the way it should be for all of us). Its just that I find it galling when the ordinary women are hidden away for their supposed flaws, while men are being championed for all the things we are told make us repulsive.
Posted on 19 June 2008 at 10:05 PM
Jacinta said:
I think Jeremy Clarkson is a brilliant presenter and interviewer. He's got a big ego, definitely, he's loudmouthed, opiniated, bullish, brazen, argumentative, provocative but I can't help liking him for his integrity, courage, charisma. I don't often agree with what he says. But he's a natural, he's not worried about convention. I prefer his personality to eg Gordon Brown who appears wooden and insipid in comparison. I don't really think that Jeremy Clarkson expects to be taken seriously. I know nothing of his personal life, I may be wrong, but I imagine him to be a doting husband and father with maybe three daughters who have him round their little finger.
Posted on 20 June 2008 at 11:14 AM
Danny said:
I don't think Jeremy Clarkson is sexist, I just think he's a bit of an idiot. And you wouldn't say he'd done a lot for the cause of road safety.
I think a lot of the posts on this topic are pedantic, and some sound frankly unbalanced.
Posted on 20 June 2008 at 12:45 PM
Aimee said:
Quite right , I mean, I don't know him. I'm pretty certain the man has some distasteful right wing sensibilities, but that doesn't mean he should be subjected to this kind of abuse.
It's interesting, Elizabeth, that you mention 'beautiful' TV presenters. I often wonder whether there really is an objective definition of beauty? I know that there are tribal peoples who worship large women and find them the pinnace of beauty. Lady Qin of the Chinese Qin dynasty was astonishingly, morbidly obese and was considered fantastically beautiful. Given, this was more to do with a woman being a physical display of her husband's wealth than an appreciation of women in general, but it just goes to show that attractiveness is utterly subjective and completely dependent on the context of the contemperaneous culture.
Posted on 20 June 2008 at 8:38 PM
Ian said:
The politically incorrect nature of Top Gear is what is so refreshing.
I dont think you'll find many people who agree with everything clarkson says.
It's popularity is purely based on how 'un-pc' the show can be as it is an escape from the droll lives most lead or feel they lead. (red tape, taxes, paper work)
Clarkson fills the role nicely, however, this does not mean there isn't space for an "anti-top gear" on TV. i.e. total opposite.... whatever that maybe?!
Posted on 28 July 2008 at 12:00 AM