Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, roll up, roll up, for the Real Johnny Anglais Show!
♦You’ll gasp with (feigned) shock, as his Nice Guy (TM) mask slips, to reveal the ugly misogynist underneath!
♦You’ll laugh out loud, when you realise he thinks objectification is literally about where ones eyes roam during sex!
♦You’ll groan with despair, when you realise he hasn’t answered a single awkward questions about the sex industry!
♦You’ll laugh out loud again, when he claims he’s being forced to spend his time defending porn!
♦You’ll laugh and groan, as he descends into sub-literate ranting!
Johnny Anglais (teacher, stripper and porn performer Benedict Garrett, who was found guilty by the General Teaching Council of unacceptable professional conduct but permitted to continue teaching), in response to this post here claimed that he’s able to answer awkward questions about the porn industry. But, instead of actually answering any such questions, he only gave wishy-washy answers that didn’t address any of the specifics of the types of abuse women (and men) suffer in the sex industry, and continued to insist that abuse is not common, and no different to the abuse that occurs in any other industry.
Instead of responding to any of the specific points I made, he twice set up a straw woman to attack instead, and resorted to misogynistic insults in response to the ‘insults’ against him that he made up in his head.
“You nasty, nasty, vile woman. […] the pure nastiest [sic] and vindictiveness of your entire essence and argument. You’re not a feminist, you’re a vitriolic, bitter man-hater.”
Being called a ‘man-hater’ or ‘angry’ (‘bitter’ is just a synonym for ‘angry’) is probably a terrifying prospect for any non-feminist woman, and he would probably have completed the triumvirate with ‘lesbian’ if he wasn’t going to later accuse me of ogling penises! Trying to intimidate a radical feminist with these words is just pathetic, and, quite frankly, boring, but it is useful as a demonstration of how quickly this supposed Nice Guy (TM) was happy to start flinging such words around, and using a made-up excuse too.
Johnny also made this rather bizarre statement in relation to objectification:
“So, every time you look at a penis, you make sure you have the whole body in view too? Get real!”
Poor Johnny, I did accuse him of “[viewing] women as disembodied vaginas” so it’s perhaps not surprising that he got confused. The meaning of ‘to view’ and ‘to see’ is not just limited to the workings of our eyes, the dictionary definition of ‘to view‘ includes:
“16. to contemplate mentally; consider: to view the repercussions of a decision.
“17. to regard in a particular light or as specified: She views every minor setback as a disaster.“
The mainstream tends to confuse objectification with being ‘looked at’ or ‘found attractive’, so let’s remind ourselves of Martha C. Nussbaum’s seven notions of objectification, these are, briefly, instrumentality, denial of autonomy, inertness, fungibility (being interchangeable), violability, being owned, and denial of subjectivity. A field slave is undoubtedly objectified (treated like an instrument to be used, denied autonomy, interchangeable, violated, owned and denied subjectivity), but nobody actively wants to look at him.
It doesn’t really matter where Johnny is looking while he’s fucking, he spoke and wrote about women as ‘its’, as ‘things’, as interchangeable objects that he acted upon and manipulated; he watched porn to learn how to ‘pleasure’ them, but didn’t mention at all actually asking a woman how she would like to be interacted with.
Johnny has this to say about his efforts defending the porn industry (parse it if you dare!):
“But this is the limelight in which I have been thrust and one thing I fight for against the narrow-minded and irrational, like you, although, I believe, probably with your heart in the right place, just with your blame targetted [sic] at the wrong source and your tarnish-brush out in full swing.”
Johnny seems to be claiming that he doesn’t have any choice about defending porn! So, while no woman is ever forced into making porn, he is forced into the public light to defend it!
Johnny is a trained teacher, one would assume he therefore understands the importance of proofreading his own work (and of reading his source material properly to make sure he understands it before responding to it), and is capable of producing a high standard of written English, but he chose to submit a comment that, in the final paragraph (and especially in the final sentence of that paragraph, as quoted above), is barely literate. Johnny can’t be that stupid, he wouldn’t have managed for any length of time as a teacher otherwise, so maybe he was genuinely upset over the stuff he made up in his head? That might stand up, except that he links to his comment from his Facebook page, on the very same day, saying:
“Here we go again. This time the anti-porn ‘feminist’ gets personal. So, I throw a little back at her”
He even goes to the trouble of using the feminist graffiti image from our sidebar as an illustration. That’s not the behaviour of someone who is genuinely hurt or shocked by something, that’s the behaviour of a smug, stupid bully who thinks he’s done something to be proud of. So then, this is either a cynical attempt at an ’emotive’ performance, to distract attention from his tilting at straw feminists, or he has such a bloated ego that he thinks everyone else (including his supporters) is so stupid that they won’t be able to see the cheap tricks he’s pulling.