I went out last night to the Society of Authors' meeting and we were indulging in social chat before our proper "discussion" - we being 1 F military historian, 1 F journalist/biographer/playwright, 1 F novelist, 1 F children's writer and 1 M technical writer and me.... and some one began to talk about the news, because by coincidence, 3 well-known men - Dave Lee Travis, Rolf Harris and Bill Roache were all on trial for coming on too strong with young women.
The conversation was interesting - it revealed what we thought was or wasn't "unreasonable". And we didn't entirely agree. I thought people who were adults when men came on to them (we are talking harassment, not rape here), shouldn't be charging them 20 years later, but perhaps I'm wrong. I think the problem is that all these cases are bundled together, so that underage sex is on trial, as well as a bit of slap and tickle with an adult, albeit junior colleague. It's quite hard to sort things out, especially since people have subjective responses to the people involved. There is a sort of hierarchy about what is felt to be awful.
!. At the top is Jimmy Savile - now widely agreed to be a monster! Psychopath etc. etc. Nothing, not all the charity work (penitential in nature?) can get him off the hook of being, widely considered to be the Mengele of celebrity sexual abusers.
2. Any acts on pre-teenage children - no matter by whom, largely considered beyond the pale...
3. Acts on boys, teenager or otherwise, by adult men still considered to be "worse" than girl teenagers - since (implicitly) sex is what teenage girls are "for".
4. Dave Lee Travis - not exactly a monster,but very much a partaker in the 70s sex pest culture. Due to the coy nature of court reporting on the BBC news we hear a great deal about "sexual acts" - why can't they spell it out... what are we actually being called upon to be revolted by here?
5. William Roache: despite being father of the lovely Linus, and having all his family in court with him, there doesn't seem to be that much sympathy for him. His victims were early teens, under 16 - and in one case returned to his house after being raped there previously (she said she felt guilty about doing this - which opens up a whole load of issues about guilt/pleasure etc. that are the flip side of child abuse (no, I'm not saying "they like it really" but simply that it's more complex than one might imagine from the media account)). Bill Roache is a well known nutter of course, a Druid, into astrology, and a proselytising Tory... arrrrgh. He is widely confused with the more sympathetic character he plays - Ken Barlow - so there is sympathy for him.
6. Rolf Harris: apparently lots of people are shocked by this, because they "liked" him - i.e. felt they could be chums, including our hostess, who had enjoyed his tv work for many years. So there is a bit of a sympathy vote for Rolf and all jokes about "extra legs" etc (a song I found rather sinister when young - due to a not entirely unconscious association with the phallus!) are thought to be distasteful - the trial is not over, his wife is in a wheelchair, the jury has not even gone out yet - and many people are hoping he will be acquitted.
Evolutionary biology? Or Tory policy?
I think that sums up the conversation - but I am still struggling with the idea that adult women who have received sexual harassment in the work place - which is unpleasant admittedly (I know a bit about it) should somehow be lumped in with underage girls. I can't quite understand why they are complaining about it now - because however wrong it is, however annoying or upsetting or humiliating it was, a one-off bit of sexual harassment, is something you ought to be able to get over.
I bet some evolutionary biologists (more Tories!) would say men are "programmed" to be attracted to teenage girls who were at their most fertile and at an age when they will most successfully bear children. I would say that clearly the men are not interested in any future progeny - and if they have successfully socialised themselves out of that urge, they can bloody well work on socialising themselves out of the rest of it..... I cannot help noticing in passing that most of the above men have worked for, promoted or been members of the Conservative party. Given the whole other strand of political paedophilia which seems to involve Conservative MPs past one does wonder what the connection is (perhaps it's something to do with men who are insufficiently evolved???). Jim Davidson was another (Tory/suspect)...
Joke: Q. Why DO dogs lick their balls? (er, that's testicles, not playthings)
I'm beginning to lose track of all the people who have been charged, rumoured to be involved, or just found
generally creepy. Perhaps it would be safer to assume that all men in positions of power will do this if they can get away with it. Unless they are in the Labour Party of course? I am mystified about this actually, I was in the Labour party in my late 20s - early 30s and not a bad looking woman though I say it myself - but but but... there was a lot of joshy, jocular sexism from older Trades Unionists and MPs - who had not yet had their consciousnesses raised. When they said anything we all just screamed at them and told them they were sexist pigs! I can't think of any Labour chaps doing this sort of thing (unless I have a selective memory).
They do say with the Tories it's sex, and with Socialists it's money (doesn't leave much scope for the Labour party then)...but perhaps that's true. Money is tempting if you haven't had much, maybe Labour men get laid more so don't feel the need to prey on kids so much... maybe all that jocular sexism is part of their mating ritual, counter-intuitively it is actually what gets them laid:
"This is how it works love - we get all patriarchal, you get outraged, and feel the need to correct us, we slowly feign understanding, giving you the pleasure of thinking you've successfully changed our thinking - and then, having focussed on us for a while, you find us attractive, sensitive, perceptive - because we've accepted your viewpoint. And then we've got you!"
Great strategy. There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents....
"Get your coat love, you've pulled!".
A. Because they can!
The conversation was interesting - it revealed what we thought was or wasn't "unreasonable". And we didn't entirely agree. I thought people who were adults when men came on to them (we are talking harassment, not rape here), shouldn't be charging them 20 years later, but perhaps I'm wrong. I think the problem is that all these cases are bundled together, so that underage sex is on trial, as well as a bit of slap and tickle with an adult, albeit junior colleague. It's quite hard to sort things out, especially since people have subjective responses to the people involved. There is a sort of hierarchy about what is felt to be awful.
!. At the top is Jimmy Savile - now widely agreed to be a monster! Psychopath etc. etc. Nothing, not all the charity work (penitential in nature?) can get him off the hook of being, widely considered to be the Mengele of celebrity sexual abusers.
2. Any acts on pre-teenage children - no matter by whom, largely considered beyond the pale...
3. Acts on boys, teenager or otherwise, by adult men still considered to be "worse" than girl teenagers - since (implicitly) sex is what teenage girls are "for".
4. Dave Lee Travis - not exactly a monster,but very much a partaker in the 70s sex pest culture. Due to the coy nature of court reporting on the BBC news we hear a great deal about "sexual acts" - why can't they spell it out... what are we actually being called upon to be revolted by here?
5. William Roache: despite being father of the lovely Linus, and having all his family in court with him, there doesn't seem to be that much sympathy for him. His victims were early teens, under 16 - and in one case returned to his house after being raped there previously (she said she felt guilty about doing this - which opens up a whole load of issues about guilt/pleasure etc. that are the flip side of child abuse (no, I'm not saying "they like it really" but simply that it's more complex than one might imagine from the media account)). Bill Roache is a well known nutter of course, a Druid, into astrology, and a proselytising Tory... arrrrgh. He is widely confused with the more sympathetic character he plays - Ken Barlow - so there is sympathy for him.
6. Rolf Harris: apparently lots of people are shocked by this, because they "liked" him - i.e. felt they could be chums, including our hostess, who had enjoyed his tv work for many years. So there is a bit of a sympathy vote for Rolf and all jokes about "extra legs" etc (a song I found rather sinister when young - due to a not entirely unconscious association with the phallus!) are thought to be distasteful - the trial is not over, his wife is in a wheelchair, the jury has not even gone out yet - and many people are hoping he will be acquitted.
Evolutionary biology? Or Tory policy?
I think that sums up the conversation - but I am still struggling with the idea that adult women who have received sexual harassment in the work place - which is unpleasant admittedly (I know a bit about it) should somehow be lumped in with underage girls. I can't quite understand why they are complaining about it now - because however wrong it is, however annoying or upsetting or humiliating it was, a one-off bit of sexual harassment, is something you ought to be able to get over.
I bet some evolutionary biologists (more Tories!) would say men are "programmed" to be attracted to teenage girls who were at their most fertile and at an age when they will most successfully bear children. I would say that clearly the men are not interested in any future progeny - and if they have successfully socialised themselves out of that urge, they can bloody well work on socialising themselves out of the rest of it..... I cannot help noticing in passing that most of the above men have worked for, promoted or been members of the Conservative party. Given the whole other strand of political paedophilia which seems to involve Conservative MPs past one does wonder what the connection is (perhaps it's something to do with men who are insufficiently evolved???). Jim Davidson was another (Tory/suspect)...
Joke: Q. Why DO dogs lick their balls? (er, that's testicles, not playthings)
I'm beginning to lose track of all the people who have been charged, rumoured to be involved, or just found
generally creepy. Perhaps it would be safer to assume that all men in positions of power will do this if they can get away with it. Unless they are in the Labour Party of course? I am mystified about this actually, I was in the Labour party in my late 20s - early 30s and not a bad looking woman though I say it myself - but but but... there was a lot of joshy, jocular sexism from older Trades Unionists and MPs - who had not yet had their consciousnesses raised. When they said anything we all just screamed at them and told them they were sexist pigs! I can't think of any Labour chaps doing this sort of thing (unless I have a selective memory).
They do say with the Tories it's sex, and with Socialists it's money (doesn't leave much scope for the Labour party then)...but perhaps that's true. Money is tempting if you haven't had much, maybe Labour men get laid more so don't feel the need to prey on kids so much... maybe all that jocular sexism is part of their mating ritual, counter-intuitively it is actually what gets them laid:
"This is how it works love - we get all patriarchal, you get outraged, and feel the need to correct us, we slowly feign understanding, giving you the pleasure of thinking you've successfully changed our thinking - and then, having focussed on us for a while, you find us attractive, sensitive, perceptive - because we've accepted your viewpoint. And then we've got you!"
Great strategy. There is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents....
"Get your coat love, you've pulled!".
A. Because they can!
No comments:
Post a Comment