Stewart Lee

Newuser that's a pretty good article although I must admit to being surprised that Gervais is considered woke. The ultra woke people I follow seem to hate him for lack of wokeness & Derek. I can see how he's woke compared to Mrs Brown's Boys. He makes an excellent point about Fleabag & what the NTA awards says about British politics & culture more widely.

We saw him about 7 years ago and he was crucifying Top Gear esp "Richard the Hamster Hammond who isn't a hamster but a real man". I thought he was superb then. He proceeded to climb up the side of the ex-church we were in. His last tour, Content Provider, i was sad to miss. We saw it on tv and liked it but it was never as good as seeing him live. We did see Carpet Remnant World and enjoyed it but i was ill and so wasn't as good as before. My dates are all shot to fuck now i'm over 45 so I'm only guessing the first one we saw was 7 years ago. Anyway i like him and think he's a talented comedian

(Sorry, wasn't meant to sound scolding in my first sentence there! Just from experience it doesn't get anyone anywhere!)

There's not much point in arguing about who finds him funny or not. I find some of his little stylistic touches hilarious, whereas some of the takes or long surrealist tales leave me a bit cold.

Last week's column included this though: "In 2012, I wrote a piece for the Quietus, reappraising the sword and sorcery pulps of the 30s, such as RE Howard’s enduring Conan the Barbarian, CL Moore’s forgotten feminist Jirel the Swordswoman, and PG Wodehouse’s prophetic Jolyon the Beastslayer, about a wealthy London lawyer who is transported to feudal Japan, where he must wear a kimono and club oriental mammals to death with his 20th-century sport bat."

*odd and smug
*Michael Gove

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/02/mrs-browns-boys-deserving-winner-stewart-lee

If you're not used to his writing it can seem a bit odd smug. And the appeal for me is that I feel clever if I get the jokes (he once did one in the style of Kafka's metamorphosis and I felt extremely intellectual for getting it 😂) although the Micheal Hove beat poet thing is just nonsense. Anyway enjoy! Or don't! Aagh I'm no good at the internet

Can anyone link The Observer column? Tried google obv & can't find it. Or if only in print, could you summarise?

Serendipity - that clip about the IRA is very funny. He's not actually praising the IRA.

Yes, but not everyone actually wanted to understand that (and not everyone could either).

..They didn't want to be British...

He’s not a critical thinker he’s a comedian. Now obviously there is some crossover as the use of humour is a pretty useful tool of rhetoric and thus has a place in philosophy.

His brand is one of relatively complex wit that makes his fan base feel superior and intellectual for “getting” it (along with being genuinely amusing in places his joke construction is that of a virtuoso, I wouldn’t take that away from).

Where he falls down is that in terms of genuine intellectual content his contributions are restricted to the weary affected “too cool for school” variety of a cynical half calorie nihilist.

People up thread have noted the inconsistency of the skeptic atheist community when it comes to trans ideology, and that is because these people don’t actually have a real intellectual curiosity to pursue the truth they want to be on trend with a modern secular attack on religion, but because being trans is also currently on trend the same degree of skepticism does not get applied.

It is no great achievement to be the smartest sheep in the herd if you are just going to be headed in the same direction as all the others anyway. It just makes intelligence an affectation of little real value.

Thing is, I do get what he's trying to do. I've been a fan for years and watched everything he's done since way back.

I found him amusing once and his piece about workplace formalities was funny last night. I'll credit him with that.

He points at obvious biogtry and does a Bernard Manning voice and he's oh so clever in his storytelling and references, his faux indignation that some people don't even know what proper nouns are had the students by me howling.

Of course, some don't get his irony and nuance, his level of abstract wit. But that's because they voted leave and read Tony Parsons.

I'm now questioning if I felt smug and superior for 'getting' his jokes.

BUT... last night, he nailed his flag to the mast for me.
We are the joke. Women.

Serendipity - that clip about the IRA is very funny. He's not actually praising the IRA. One of the comments below the clip puts it very nicely:

"You do realise that the entire point of the joke is that this kind of comparative evaluation of different terrorist groups is absurd and stupid, whilst taking the mick out of the whole cliche of old comedians, usually from the north of England, reminiscing about 'the good old days.'"

doubly sad when a woman does it. way to demonstrate that internalised misogyny

I have to hold my hand up to this. Came to Mumsnet via AIBU being linked to from other sites. Found it entertainingly bonkers. Got completely hooked by the variety of opinions and expertise here. I have to admit, it wasn't what I expected.

I saw him live about 10 years ago and thought he was pants. he tried to get the audience to give a round of applause for the IRA. No one did.

Nuance, eh ?

cor

just read SL's observer column

i know admitting you don't get it is verboten....but i don't get it.

some posters i respect have said they like him on this thread, but that read like a stream of bollocks consciousness. i really don't understand anyone spending time or money to consume his output. but obviously i respect your right to do so

i think people pointing out that his audience are people who identify as liberal and 'nice', so understanding that humans can't change sex and women need sex based protections would be an incredibly bad career move for him

but deception is always uncomfortable to watch. and while he is decrying widespread 'transphobia' but identifying as a critical thinker, he is deceiving himself or his audience or both. awks

Op I think you can relax - read today's observer column!

When metaphorical witch-burning has come back into fashion, some people find giving tribute to pseudo-religions quite easy to do.

No a problem in itself, but if you're going to do this you have to acknowledge that you're upholding the patriarchy for an easy life.

Stewart is a strong atheist and I don’t understand how he can’t see gender id is the notion of the soul repackaged. But then, rational or critical thought goes out the window when the magic trans word is uttered.

That's an excellent point.

I was a huge Stewart Lee fan and have seen him live often. I know he’s marmite. I also like Bridget Christie and have seen her live often. (They are married, Which I think is relevant). The last time I saw her, maybe 3/4 years ago, she pronounced twaw, no debate and how one of her closest friends was TW. So I think they’re both of the libfem persuasion, very much about individual female agency and not so much about structural oppression. Stewart is a strong atheist and I don’t understand how he can’t see gender id is the notion of the soul repackaged. But then, rational or critical thought goes out the window when the magic trans word is uttered.

My hubby and I are going to see him later on in the year. Hubby thinks his funny, I thought he was okay. I suspect that this time I'll be sitting there muttering 'twat twat twat' under my breath.

Absolutely Royal

And there's the women he berates and genralises while joking about his nan and pearl clutchers not wanting paedophiles urinating in the street (can't reacall the exact line, but it was related to the 'hysteria' of women in little Britain).

His arrogant assumption that Nora (I used Deidre earlier as an example, but I think it was Nora reading Alan Bennet that he used in his sketch) in her semi watching Coronation Street doesn't deserve a vote as she won't use it wisely.

I bet Nora's encountered more patriarchal based inequality than he can shake his copy of Kafka at.

The stereotypes of Mumsnet are: Its full of empty headed women concerned about baby poos and prams. (Which I vastly prefer to the alternative.)
OR Mumsnet is extremely right wing. This later is unfortunately the one my own daughters have swallowed, and Mr Lee it seems.

And I've still waiting on my cheques from the American right and others who are funding all the causes I have supported and campaigned for. Has anyone got their yet?

Does he really think those women on here that did subscribe to The Guardian and Labour (just using examples he would 'approve' of) that protested section 28 and marched against fascism, suddenly all woke up one day upon hearing about the Gender Recognition Act and decided to do a complete U turn?

Apparently, yes. Although I think a lot of them don't bother thinking at all. I was at yesterday's conference and it was obvious that a large proportion of the women attending (not to mention the organisers, WPUK) were socialist feminists. A lot of women there have a history of trade unionism, collective action, campaigning against Section 28, going on CND marches, etc etc etc. It doesn't fit the narrative of gc feminists being a bunch of women funded by the American evangelical right so they just ignore the evidence and go with what makes them feel comfortable.

You articulated my thoughts too, Sophocles.

I'm disappointed to learn that Stewart is just a bog standard misogynist.

On the other hand, the sexist stereotyping of MN is what has allowed women to organise here. We fly under the radar to some extent because when sexists hear 'mum' they immediately think 'wittering imbecile'.

Soph you articulate my thoughts brilliantly too.

I think that's why I felt so disappointed last night.
Women, as a collective (Mumsnet), were the butt of the joke. The young male students by me found this particularly hilarious.

Women are fair game. Easy to attack as a group. Cheap laughs. But he couldn't possibly be bigoted because he's progressive and he even makes jokes about 'bigots', right?

As part of his clear lack of respect for women,
Lee referenced Mumsnet frequently, alongside his sneering at The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Brexiteers and Tories. This air of moral superiority, this wokeness, bugs me, because that in itself is a narrow minded world view.

Does he really think those women on here that did subscribe to The Guardian and Labour (just using examples he would 'approve' of) that protested section 28 and marched against fascism, suddenly all woke up one day upon hearing about the Gender Recognition Act and decided to do a complete U turn?

The irony is that his beloved paper of choice could not even print the word 'woman' in an editorial last year, while the Daily Mail ran an excellent piece yesterday about Harry Miller and The Sun featured an equally robust piece on the 4,000 per cent rise in girls being referred to 'gender' clinics.

The Guardian believes that humans can change sex, that men's feelings trump women's rights, safety and dignity, and that experimenting on confused children is to be applauded.

While Labour supports self ID and encourages males (including Stewart's pal Eddie Izzard) to steal women's places on female shortlists.

doubly sad when a woman does it. way to demonstrate that internalised misogyny

Agree.