I've never known what the correct protocol or etiquette is considered to be if you intend to comment on something written in the blog of someone you vaguely know. I'm going to assume, though, that if you feel the need to respond to something someone has written in the public domain, the guidelines for your response should be as always: don't say anything you can't back up, avoid making it personal, and try to stay coherent. Of course, I rarely if ever observe those rules here, but I make an exception where people whose opinions I respect and/or with whom I have friends in common are concerned.

With that in mind, I have to take issue with the following statement, made at Auntie's Book Of Wisdom concerning Julie Burchill: "She pisses a hell of a lot of 'right on' men off because she sees through their guilt and not so well hidden sexism". Now, it may be that the author is referring to one or more specific angry response(s) to Burchill in which guilt or sexism are clearly at work; but since none are cited, I think it's fair to say that it can be read much more generally than that, even if that's the way it was intended. For this reason, I felt I ought to point out some other possible reasons why "a hell of a lot of 'right-on'* men" might be pissed off by Julie Burchill's various writings. Bear in mind that I'm not sure exactly what 'right-on' in those inverted commas means in this context, but I'm guessing we're talking mostly left-wing, socially progressive, theoretically liberal, would-be radical, etc (again, unhelpful terms in the end but I'm guessing we can all have a stab in the dark).

For example, I think it's likely that certain men would object to a recent column in which Burchill did her bit to encourage the popular media stereotype of the gay man as sexual predator, preying on heterosexual men, and attached ones at that. The advice offered for the female half of het couples is: "[K]eep him at arm's length if he tries to talk of sex, because he's got an agenda. And while you're not on it, your boyfriend may well be." (There's also some stuff about the alleged double standards of the "gay lobby" which will be all-too-familiar to anyone who's read more traditionally right-wing columnists - Richard Littlejohn, etc. - though I doubt even Burchill's harshest critics would equate her with that genuinely evil little man.)

Another reason for negative reactions to Burchill from the 'right-on' camp might be her vocal support for the invasion of Iraq, and specifically the way in which this support was expressed. Her columns on this issue were characterised by a particular delight in making tabloid-style attacks on those who opposed the war: "pro-Saddam... self-loathing Brit-haters... appeasers... a bunch of self-righteous tossers... soft, self-centred, sedentary... chattering classes... phoney and pointless..." (to be contrasted with the "good hearts and good fighting" of "our fighting men", "so brave and true"). And again: "Anti-war nuts suffer from the usual mixture of egotism and self-loathing... Surely this is the most self-obsessed anti-war protest ever. NOT IN MY NAME! That's the giveaway. Who gives a stuff about their wet, white, western names?" - which prompted this pertinent response: "The Not In Our Name statement of conscience was first published in the Guardian. Nevertheless, Julie Burchill... seems not to have looked at it. Many of the names belong to people of Arabic, African or Asian descent. A brief glance reveals James Abourezk, Yuri Kochiyama, the Rev Jesse Jackson, Bell Hooks, Yoko Ono, Janet L Abu-Lughod, Abdeen Jabara, Edward Said etc." Yet more cheering for US/UK aggression and vilifying its opponents here and here, and I'm afraid I've quoted about as much of her writing on the subject as I can stomache.

Others may object to her views on alcoholism, anorexia, depression and ME (essentially, that none of these are real diseases, and those who claim to suffer from them should shut up and pull their socks up). Or how about her opinion of transvestites and male-to-female transexuals? Read this particularly breathtaking piece in its entirity, if you can, or at least until the point where it just descends into a string of sneering, shockingly hateful insults. (I'm not sure exactly what Burchill thinks about FTM transexuals, because here she doesn't seem to be aware or acknoledge that they exist - we are instead invited to "imagine" their existence.)

Here's Burchill on immigration: "I don't want white eastern Europeans here at all", says Julie, before moving on to invoke visions of "a bunch of white Czechs over here getting housed before some Brit single mother... legions of Albanians knifing prostitutes on Dover Beach.. greedy Croatian[s]". I haven't even got round to citing her support for Israeli policy in Palestine, her propogation of Islamophobia and anti-Arab sentiments, or her defence of English nationalism (although these can be inferred to an extent from the articles above) - again, these could all be opinions that may have angered "'right-on' men" (and, of course, women) - let alone possible objections to her rhetorical style which I don't really have the expertise or energy to make conjectures about here (and besides, I like her style sometimes - see below).

It's not that I don't agree that Burchill is never right - we agree on more than a couple of things, from Blair's love of wealth and the wealthy, to reality TV and Girls Aloud, and when she's on your side, you can't help but relish her way with rhetoric. It's just that she's written some things that I think are indefensible - or at the very least, for which she has not offered a plausible defence. And while these statements stand, I'm afraid I'll always view her as someone doing more harm than good with what she writes.


(And that's soooo the most heavily researched piece of writing this blog has seen or will see for some time. Back to ranting and making lists.)