Why Jeremey Clarkson is a feminist issue.

As both a woman and a mother of two mixed race girls, Jeremey Clarkson's comments about Megan Markle have bothered me.  

If you've not been privy to the news, English broadcaster Clarkson, known best for presenting Top Gear and Who Wants to be a Millionaire, wrote in his Sun column that he hated the Duchess of Sussex on a 'cellular level' and wanted to see her 'made to parade naked through the streets in every town of Britain, while the crowd chanted shame and threw excrement at her.' (He's alluding to Game of Thrones and Cercei's shame scene). The column has since been removed, I'm assuming because of the 12,000 complaints (and counting), to the UK Press standards Agency. 

'What's perturbed me most about the unfolding story is the influx of male, pale and stale opinion supporting Clarkson's comments - the patriarchy my sisters, is alive and well.'

What's perturbed me most about the unfolding story is the influx of male, pale and stale opinion supporting Clarkson's comments - the patriarchy my sisters, is alive and well. There is an insinuation that us 'snowflakes' have missed the point, he's being metaphorical they cry, stop being so sensitive oh and free speech, he's allowed to say what he wants, free speech! Let's be clear, whilst all feelings are valid, not all behaviours are. So whilst Clarkson is indeed free to dislike Megan Markle, his graphic vitriol has action behind it, a misogynistic, racist behaviour that quite frankly we cannot and will not tolerate. Secondly, free speech does not mean you can tout opinion in a vacuum and without consequence. Everyone opposing Jeremey's comments are exercising their right to free speech. As the saying goes, the pen is mightier than the sword, its why there are laws which protect against hate speech, because words can and do cause violence. In the specific context of Megan and Harry, after stories circulated about Megan Markle, incidents of trespassing and stalking increased.   

'Let's be clear, whilst all feelings are valid, not all behaviours are. So whilst Clarkson is indeed free to dislike Megan Markle, his graphic vitriol has action behind it, a misogynistic, racist behaviour that quite frankly we cannot and will not tolerate.'

So it begs the question, why can't Jeremy Clarkson emotionally regulate when it comes to Megan Markle? Why does a selection of the British media continue to froth at the very mention of her name? Why does Megan have so many naysayers, whereas Prince Andrew for instance, (who is dogged by rape claims), seems to elude such disdain? 

It points to one big, obvious problem - Britain is racist and misognonistic. As Jeremy Clarkson puts it, 'everyone who is my age thinks the same way.' Megan represents a changing tide, a generation that can and will dismantle old regimes that prop up systematic racism, closets mental health and seems to perpetuate misogynistic behaviour against women. I believe what we saw demonstrated in Clarkson's column is your run of the mill toxic masculinity, the Nelson of our Springfield elementary, the fist wielding bully acting out because of a need to be loved. Jeremey Clarkson is a feminist issue because he symbolises a section of society, which still has an amplified voice oppressing women and people of colour. 

It must shrink gonads to witness a woman, a black woman none the less, seemingly dismantling a regime which has held steadfast for hundreds of years. But let's be clear, Megan Markle isn't single handily unravelling the monarchy, rather she opened the curtains and let the light hit the dark corners of our monarchy, a colonial system we're no longer able to hide behind fancy drapes. She unwittingly affronted us, the British public, with the uncomfortable truths of our past and how in a modern and diverse society its difficult to see where and how exactly a monarchy sits. 

I cried when the Queen died and I actually don't mind the royals in a day to day sense, I also don't need them ousted and working in Tesco's to feel satiated. What I would like is the tirade of abuse towards Megan Markle to stop, the symbiotic relationship between the press and the royals is something that needs at worst, reviewing and at best dismantling. One person (Meg), should not be at the mercy of the 'broski's' a.k.a. the monoculture of white, male editors who for some bewildering reason just don't like her? 

'One person (Meg), should not be at the mercy of the 'broski's' a.k.a. the monoculture of white, male editors who for someone bewildering reason just don't like her?' 

As for Clarkson, to borrow his own vivid imagery, I don't need him put in the stocks and a vigilante crowd led by Gloria Steinman, to pelt rotten tomatoes at him in order to gain retribution. He's a human being who's made an error, I don't need him blacklisted or hounded by the internet, I just want him to reflect, take accountability and just bloody, well apologise to Meg and Harry. Cushioned by years of patriarchy, intoxicated by the exuberance of his own verbosity and existing in an amphitheatre of jocular peers (I'm looking at you Piers Morgan), I think that apology is going to be a while... 

So ladies, my non binary friends, allies and everyone in between, be well, stay strong. 

Love Soph 

x