I should warn you, this post is going to contain a graphic image. Many of you will have had the misfortune to have seen it on Twitter but I’m just giving you a heads-up.
Today’s latest revelation about Mermaids has been that their Digital Engagement Officer, Darren Mew, likes to pose in sexualised schoolgirl garb and pose for photos looking like a sexual small boy. Let’s take a look at Darren, shall we?
They/Them/She/Her certainly has a lot of pronouns for a man, doesn’t he? And one of Attitude mag’s 101 LGBTQ trailblazers. Of course. Of course he is. And went to Goldsmith’s. And works for Mermaids. It’s like the Queer Theory trifecta, the gender holy trinity.
And now, that photo. I apologise in advance
Now, Darren can dress however he wants and pose for whatever he wants, BUT if you have any sort of job even remotely concerning kids, no-one should be able to find a photo of you on the internet with your cock out. It’s as simple as that. The mind absolutely boggles at all the men - and it is all men - wailing on about supposed bigots and prudes making this point as though it is virtually impossible to stop yourself posing with your shaved cock and your ginger ringpiece splayed for the world to see like Darren has done. Whereas for 99% of the population, it is unthinkable.
I have zero problems with men wearing skirts and makeup. Zero. I used to hang out with blokes in a hair metal band (you’ve never seen so much makeup and hairspray in your life. I think they were single-handedly responsible for the hole in the ozone layer). I have male friends who are genuinely gender non-conforming and have been for decades. You want to wear a skirt and a bit of lippy, luv, you do you. But there’s a difference between my mate who is an artist wearing a long goth skirt and blue lipstick in his tiny studio and Darren WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ADULTS AND CHILDREN AT A CHILDREN’S CHARITY leaning back on his bed with a semi-on under his teeny-tiny schoolgirl kilt and kneesocks giving the camera a come-hither look for anyone to find on the internet - including the children who Mermaids works with. And there is especially a difference when Darren also likes to shave his entire body and make himself look like a small child in creepy poses while having his erection and bumhole photographed for crappy porn *art* which anyone could search for, seeing as he used his real name.
Apparently, this look, the tight polo shirt, the mini kilt, and the knee socks, is called e-girl or e-kid culture and this is how Google describes it.
I dunno, still sound noncey as all fuck to me. If there are two words that should never go together, it’s ‘bondage’ and ‘baby’. That it’s a youth culture thing doesn’t make it okay. It’s really creepy.
I’ve been told by people that this is how twinks have been dressing for quite a while - well, I’m sorry, dressing up like a sexualised schoolgirl does not become one iota more acceptable just because you don’t fancy female people. Making yourself the object of the fetish (autogynephilia) is just as misogynist and gross as lusting after the fetish object itself. You don’t get a pass for being gay when it comes to sexualising young girls. Just because you might be no actual physical danger to them, by fetishising them, you are contributing to a porn-addled society where a paedophilic patriarchy dictates that hetero male sexuality should be focused on young women and girls and contributing to normalising their sexualisation… and contributing to their danger from heterosexual and bi men. It’s a very bizarre and insidious form of bros before hos but it absolutely is one.
In fact, by turning “slutty schoolgirl” into a gay fashion choice, it becomes harder for women to protest the sexualisation of girls inherent in it, as it blurs the issue because girls are not being expected to wear those clothes and the men enjoying those outfits certainly do not find girls attractive whatever they are wearing. So on the surface, it looks vaguely unproblematic. But it is autogynephilic. It is fetishistic. It is dehumanising. It is woman as costume, woman as object, woman as cosplay for men. No, not even a woman, it is girl - a child - as all those things. As Glosswitch said to me earlier on Twitter, it’s no wonder we’ve got so many girls trying to escape being female when they’re being told that this is femininity.
Gay men are still men under patriarchy. They are still trained to fetishise and sexualise young women and girls even while they are sexually repulsed by them. That it might be subverted as dressing as them themselves does not make it any less problematic or any less patriarchal or any less regressive. In fact, the repulsion of the female body plus the patriarchal training to see female as less than human makes for a situation where gay men’s appropriation of femininity can be far more offensive and dehumanising than straightforward hetero objectification. It is uncomfortable, but as feminists, we have to critique the misogyny of gay men and how it props up patriarchy in its own unique way.
It’s also infuriating that this stuff risks making homosexuality look dodgy, after decades of campaigning to prove this was just pure homophobia. Most ordinary people won’t see pictures of Darren like that and understand nuances of gender and identity and queer theory ideas of transgression and whatever - which are all bollocks anyway - they’ll just conclude that gay men are perverts, and that’s heartbreaking. This bullshit is not just conservative in the way it reifies gender, it’s conservative in the way it seems to want to promote homosexuality so dubiously.
There’s an easy way to tell if something is genuinely gender-nonconforming or just a fetish: would an ordinary woman get away with the outfit, behaviour, speech, etc., that the man dressed as a woman is exhibiting? If she would be sacked, criticised, cancelled, shunned, whatever, for the same things then a man getting away with them or even praised and defended is not being gender-nonconforming. When people defend this what you are witnessing is the cognitive dissonance of people’s need to uphold patriarchy and put men first even while they’re pretending they’re women.
And what pisses me off is how prudish it does make us all sound slagging this stuff off. Any criticism of sexuality in our society is posited as you automatically being a ridiculous uptight Mary Whitehouse type who would faint if she saw her husband without his socks on. Listen, I’ve seen some shit. I’ve done some shit. I had a close friend back in the 90s whose sexual tastes can only be summed up by the Troy McClure quote from The Simpsons “Gay?! I wish! If I were gay there'd be no problem! No, what I have is a romantic abnormality, one so unbelievable that it must be hidden from the public at all cost”. But whether you’re a regular down your local fetish dungeon or you’re a virginal nun, there is one thing that decent people all know in a heartbeat, without having to be told or forced to believe: sexuality and children do not, should not and must not, ever, EVER mix.
The big question here is, just how bad is Mermaids’ safeguarding process if ordinary women can just find this stuff out from a quick Google search? It’s like they’re wilfully ignoring all the red flags - or deliberately choosing these men. I know DBS checks only flag up previous convictions and there are no indications or suggestions that Darren has any convictions. I’m not suggesting for a minute that Darren is a nonce. I’m just saying that in my personal opinion, he makes social media choices that are incompatible with having a job that involves children. He’s not committed a crime. But if you make certain choices then you also have to accept that certain doors close for you.
I’m not even trying to say that he can’t dress like that if he really wants, or pose for those sorts of photos. Just because I find them a bit eww doesn’t mean shit. But if you choose to work with kids then you must also choose to not splash your sexuality all over social media, and - most importantly - if you choose to enjoy dressing like a sexualised schoolgirl then also choose to have a job concerning children, you have to expect eyebrows to be raised and questions asked. Because, at its most charitable conclusion, dressing like that shows such poor judgement about children means that you’re not suitable for the job. Doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a nonce, but if you can compartmentalise children as a costume choice, then a job with troubled, vulnerable kids is not for you.
What all the people who hate us forget while they’re so busy defending dubious men is this: all we care about is the kids. And the kids involved with Mermaids deserve the highest standards of safeguarding and care that all children do. They should not be a trendy stepping stone for an ambitious bright young thing who doesn’t seem to care about kids. Especially ones who seem to think they’re an erotic costume choice.
I’ll leave the last word to Yr Hen Wrach. She summed things up perfectly.