First there was Steven Fry, who gave an interview to a gay magazine in which he said:"I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man... Of course, a lot of women will deny this and say, 'Oh no, but I love sex, I love it!' But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?"amongst other variations on that theme. People got annoyed, although it's not exactly a new idea, and as soon as it all kicked off, Fry twittered
So some fucking paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up. Bye bye.Fortunately for his 1.9 million followers he came back to Twitter a week later and blogged in his defence.
Now, as noted by Private Eye magazine, Fry never offered any support for his Tweet that he'd been doubly misquoted. Rather he claimed that, although he had indeed said the words in question, he didn't believe them.
the keenest disappointment...is the idea that there are people out there who actually swallow the notion that I am so stupid as to believe that women don’t enjoy sex. That I am dense, dotty and suicidally deluded enough to make a public declaration of such a crazed belief... I entertain no such notion... I can truly report that I [am] quite assured of the fact that women do indeed enjoy sex.In fact...
I chatted to [the interviewer], we had a pleasant, relaxed and easy conversation. That’s the word, a conversation... At some point we chatted about gay sexuality – well, you would wouldn’t you, for a gay magazine? – and as part of that conversation I repeated the old canard about how men, unlike women, were cursed with their uniquely pressing and annoying libidos.But what does this mean, exactly? Why would he repeat that old canard, if he didn't think there was at least something in it? It's not like the statement is so obviously crazy that that goes without saying that he doesn't believe it: hence why it's an old canard.
...I do not believe it as some kind of eternal gender truth, I was simply taking a thought for a walk, I was “playing gracefully with ideas” to repeat Oscar’s great phrase, or at least attempting to do so.
It's true that the nuances of speech get flattened out in print. But when he said it, he evidently didn't make it clear that he thought the idea was "stupid ... dense, dotty and suicidally deluded... crazed" - as he later claimed.
Then it happened again. Lord Young (who ironically is 78), a government advisor, said that Britain's economy was strong, that many British people had profited from the "so-called recession" due to low interest rates, and that current government spending cuts were no big deal in the grand scheme of things.
People got annoyed, and he quickly retracted his words saying that his comments were "insensitive and inaccurate", though he still had to resign in the end. Why he'd suddenly revised his analysis of the economic situation, or what was wrong with his earlier statements, he didn't bother to explain...
Fry and Young obviously misjudged how socially acceptable their words would be. They made a faux-pas. We've all done it: you say something and then realize, to your horror, that everyone's jaw just dropped a little. You wish you could un-say that.
But the point is you can't.
Unless, it appears, you're in the media. Fry and Young tried to do just that. But why on earth is that acceptable? Are we so touchy that we'd rather have someone insult our intelligence by trying to convince us that they don't believe something we all heard them say, than have someone believe something we don't agree with?
14 comments:
Today's Guardian has Young as a hand puppet of ventriloquist Cameron. I think that this is much more it - Young was a test that went over like a lead balloon. By next Summer, after 9 months of the WMD (wedding of mass distraction, ibid) some other dispensable government advisor will say something similar.
Asserting then retracting.. well, at least we know they have brain disorders or behavioural disturbances. Seems Fry went too personal and Young exposed his corrupt nature. I'm thoroughly annoyed too! Go get'em tiger.
It's just the sensationalist media and Machiavellian politics - the wise strong Prince cannot afford to be seen to err .etc - shaping the hypocritical , over-anxious and controlling finger wagging age we live in.
In reality very few people actually care what Fry and Young think or say but once the media and politicians get a sniff the fake moral outrage becomes infectious and the great howl of manipulated offence goes viral throughout the blogosphere and species.
It's shocking really.
Young certainly got a tough lesson on the lack of respect , loyalty and employment rights for elderly volunteers in the Big Society but reading Fry's 3 page rambling defence was hilarious , far cry from heroic Dietrich role he played in 'V for Vendetta ' defiantly standing up for free speech in bleak age of fascist conformity.
To be fair to Young I don't think he has claimed that he was misquoted, or even entirely retracted his comments. He's said they were 'insensitive' (which they were) and 'innacurate' (which they were) but he doesn't seem to have refudiated his original sentiment.
Fry seems to have just been caught saying something that pissed off a lot of people and then been too chicken to admit he said it.
Are you like following me again?
I don't think that was Neo's point.
Being a Nancy don't excuse him from common courtesy. He didn't have to express things distastefully.
I agree Lord Young has a title to live up to. Maybe it was an honest blunder, but he should know better not to be making callous statements like that.
Have you been drinking? Go to sleep. Please.
Above response was to 'Squealer'.
Catherina: Mmm, quite possible. The coalition's line has been that Things Are Bad; but eventually, i.e. before the next election, they are going to have to argue that Things Are Good in order to justify re-election; but they need to time it right, too soon and it looks insensitive.
Squealer: That's certainly true.
pj: But what is saying your earlier comments were "inaccurate", than a retraction? But as you say, he hasn't explained why they were wrong, or what he now believes instead.
Which is why it's an insult to the intelligence. He's basically trying to un-say them, without saying anything else or explaining what he did mean.
PJ, inaccurate and insensitive is a slimy way of retracting. Someone that misinformed advising govt is ridiculous. Stepping down made it seem like an honest blunder, but my guess is he was corrupt. So he had a jab at public perception. Good thing he didn't succeed. Why the fake apology for your nature?
He said a whole lot of things - such as that 100k government jobs lost a year is within the margin of error, that it is only whingers who think the state owes them that are complaining about the cuts, that the government has oversold the cuts to protect the pound, and that people have never had it so good because low mortgage interest is benefiting them.
The 'iinacurate' and 'insensitive' apology seems limited entirely to the mortgage/never had it so good claim which has been shown to indeed be innacurate. And it would be wrong to say he hasn't said why he was wrong, he said:
"I deeply regret the comments I made and I entirely understand the offence they will cause.
"They were both inaccurate and insensitive.
"Low mortgage interest rates may have eased the burden for some families in this country. But millions of families face a very difficult and anxious future as we come to grips with the deficit. I should have chosen my words much more carefully."
That looks like an admission that low interest rates haven't benefited 'most' people.
I would guess that he completely stands by the other comments because he's a Tory peer. So while he may hold some odious views I think he is at least less hypocritical than Fry who practically pulled the studenty 'ironic' defence.
If there is one good quality to Silvio Berlusconi it is his refusal (in most cases) to apologize for his off color remarks.
Only British women enjoy sex. They are the filthiest hoes on the planet.
pj: Hmm, it's a tricky one. My reading of the apology was that it referred to the whole bunch of remarks. It's true that he only specifically discusses the mortgage one, but when he says that "millions of families face a very difficult and anxious future as we come to grips with the deficit.", I interpreted that as a wholesale backing-off e.g. maybe it also refers to the families of public sector workers who lost their jobs in the "margin of error", of welfare recipients, etc.
But anyway, I agree that Young was not as bad as Fry.
String 'em up!!!!!!
(How about a reasoned debate about the points raised by Messers Fry and Young?)
You're right hanging is too good for them! Burn 'em!!!!!!!
It's happened yet again:
"Mr Flight said he would like to withdraw the remark" the remark being that new policy changes would encourage poor people to "breed" at the expense of richer ones.
What on earth does that mean, "withdraw"? I mean I understand how it's used, it's used to mean "I'm sorry I said it", but taken literally it's absurd. You cannot withdraw what you said. You can change your mind, but that typically takes a long time, in this case, it is clearly just that he's trying to save his reputation.
Yet despite that, we bay for blood until we get such a "withdrawal".
Post a Comment