Internecine feuds between progressives are as ugly as they are rare. Usually, we on the hard left will happily respond to a call to rally and unite fearlessly against any conservative cause. We do this even if we don’t have all the facts to hand, just raw emotions. Sometimes, however, micro fissures can arise from unexpected events and suggest we are not as joined-up in our thinking as we would like to believe.
Take Harvey Weinstein, for example. For many years, nobody really entertained rumours that he might not be all he seemed. All we knew was that he was a progressive, a major donor to the Democratic Party and a wonderful supporter of Hillary. In short, he was A Good Person, one of us, just like Roman Polanski. Having run out of actresses to rape, however, time was up for Harvey and vile stories began to surface.
At first, no-one wanted to believe that Hillary’s close supporter was guilty of anything. Many progressives, including fashion designer, Donna Karan, instinctively leapt to Harvey’s defence. Karan placed the blame for Harvey’s actions firmly at womyns’ feet. As the Guardian reported early in October:
‘Karan said women who dressed provocatively were asking for trouble” “You look at everything all over the world today and how women are dressing and what they are asking by just presenting themselves the way they do. What are they asking for? Trouble.”
Karan described Weinstein and his wife, fashion designer Georgina Chapman, as “wonderful people” and said he has done “amazing things”. “I don’t think we’re only looking at him. I think we’re looking at a world much deeper than that.”
Eventually, even Karan had to retract her defence when the accredited media finally agreed a narrative in the face of overwhelming evidence condemning Weinstein. The narrative now rightly includes blanket condemnation of pretty much all white men for their incessant oppression of womyn and everyday sexual assaults. This is how it should be.
It is regrettable that it took progressives so long to agree on the accredited narrative. What I think we lack is a central authority to tell us what to think at critical moments; without such an authority, we risk looking like lemmings, simply going with the stream and unable to think for ourselves.
Danger on the horizon
Always one step ahead, the Accredited Times is concerned that the next internecine feud is just around the corner, if not on the actual horizon itself. This time the cause is likely to be the humble ‘+’ sign, as in LGBTQ+.
The addition of the + at the end of this vital acronym was intended to demonstrate inclusiveness. It was a way of saying to those who were not lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transgendered or queer people but nonetheless had non-heteronormative sexual identities or different genders to those with which they were assigned at birth: “Hey! Come and join our community! We recognize your oppression and we embrace and celebrate your diversity!”
Alas, there are many within the ‘+’ community who feel extremely vulnerable and far from included. Why can’t they have their own letters? We spoke to some of these individuals. They were willing to talk to us but only under conditions of strict anonymity out of fear that they would be asked to leave the community. Here is a selection of what they told us:
Pete A (67, minor attracted) ‘It seems that people like me are less equal than the LGBTQ crowd. Sure, they recognize my oppression but no one wants to add two simple letters ‘MA’ to their fucking precious acronym. I’m frankly triggered, mate, I don’t mind telling you”
Jess P (28, non-binary) ‘It took a lot of guts to come out as non-binary, but I’ve never been happier. It’s a shame the LGBT people are not as inclusive as they might be. I hope things change one day and we get our own letters. It would seem more permanent that way, know what I mean?’
Nero (35) ‘Look, something needs to happen. My operation cost me many thousands but I’m finally the dog I always knew I was. Apparently it would be “too confusing” to add another ‘T’ to the acronym. How convenient for the transgendered folk, bunch of cross-dressing wankers more like. They want nothing to do with the transpecies community, it’s disgusting is what it is.’
No-one knows for sure exactly who proposed for the + sign to be tagged on the end of LGBT. It may have seemed expedient at the time, and efficient for sure, but it seems that tensions are starting to rise.