Stephen Fry should resign from being President of MIND (warning about sexual abuse)

[EnthusiasmDisturbed]

According to Stephen Fry from an interviews he gave in the US

There are many great plays which contain rapes, and the word rape now is even considered a rape,” he said. “If you say: ‘you can’t watch this play, you can’t watch Titus Andronicus, or you can’t read it in a Shakespeare class, or you can’t read Macbeth because it’s got children being killed in it, it might trigger something when you were young that upset you once, because uncle touched you in a nasty place’, well I’m sorry. It’s a great shame and we’re all very sorry that your uncle touched you in that nasty place, you get some of my sympathy, but your self-pity gets none of my sympathy because self-pity is the ugliest emotion in humanity.

“Get rid of it, because no one’s going to like you if you feel sorry for yourself. The irony is we’ll feel sorry for you, if you stop feeling sorry for yourself. Just grow up.”

How can he keep his position with such an attitude. Everyone who works in MH knows of the horrendous impact that sexual abuse can have on someone's life for some it's a life long struggle.

Maybe it's his own feelings that he is fighting against, this is not the first time he has been shown to lack empathy but to have such opinions

I hope he steps down

If anyone dare suggest he stands down or is removed as president, he will just run off in an almighty sulk and let everyone know he's had it up to here and is going anyhow, like he always does when he is called out on his crap. My 7 month old gd is more grown up than this pompous, whining, attention seeker.

he will just run off in an almighty sulk and let everyone know he's had it up to here and is going anyhow, like he always does when he is called out on his crap

yup

the flounces are a joy to behold

SF:
Other People: well THAT's out of line
SF: How could you mortals POSSibly understand I remember when all this was fields right I'm off and taking my fucking geeeeenius with me

cock

I would be really grateful if people could give egs of censorship in the arts

I thought people didn't like Titus Andronicus because it was an elizabethan video nasty/a bit shit, not censorship?

He and Clarkson are of the same ilk. Hugely privileged establishment figures who use their privilege to sneer at anyone who is not like them. And then whinging and oh-so-offended when they get called on it.

He has a lot of sympathy for rich establishment figures and fuck all for anybody else.

I would be really grateful if people could give egs of censorship in the arts

Here's the most well-known one in the UK of recent times:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behzti

I think that someone who is supposed to be so clever and such a wordsmith could have found a better way to say what he was 'trying' to say. Which I'm sure someone else has pointed out already.

I don't like him that much. He seems to be getting like my dad - as he gets older, he cares less what people think about him and more about getting his point across even if his point is contentious, to say the least. Except of course he does give a shit because he regularly has tantrums and leaves Twitter because of it!

Yes, that Guardian article linked upthread is interesting.

The author is transgender and it is interesting to read her take on his privilege.

yy nauticant, I remember that- but that's not the sort of example he's referring to here I think

I used to love Stephen but now I find him completely abhorrent. Genuinely can't watch him anymore.

He's a misogynist and a hypocrite, and his regular self-piteous (ironic, huh?) flounces from Twitter whenever people call him out for being an arsehole got really tedious after the third or fourth occasion.

Tbf, to Fry I can understand his point even if how he made it was woeful. I've lived in the other side of it. I don't want to give too many details as the internet isn't ever totally anonymous so this is a bit vague but. Someone I love was abused as a child and they have let it ruin their life and have come close to destroying the lives of those around them because of it, including mine. They use the abuse as justification for all sorts of awful things they do. Things that have injured other people and endangered numerous lives. Every bad decision this person makes, every way this person hurts others. The lies that have been told, the money wasted on medical treatment and counselors that are just lied to and lied to in order to ensure pity and special treatment. When, after over a decade of so many allowances being made for awful behaviour which has crossed into mental and physical abuse of those who love this person, we came up with and insisted on healthy boundaries in order to continue the relationship, we were all the great bad guys who were ignorant and didn't care about how the abuse had damaged this person.

Believe me I sympathise and know I can't even begin to comprehend the trauma this person endured as a child. Someone who had no emotional tools to understand what was happening and didn't feel able to tell their parents. However I was raped and assaulted when I was 20 so I do have some idea of the feeling of powerlessness and the ease with which you can lash out at loved ones in your pain and sometimes feel you need allowance to be made for you. Because sometimes you do need allowances, but eventually, if you are going to be happy and if you are going to allow your loved ones to be happy. You need to let go of self-pity. You can be angry, scared, acknowledge your trauma and triggers, but self pity and expectation of special treatment that makes blameless people miserable will only ruin your life. And hurt people who don't deserve to be hurt.

good grief.

I dont have a problem with what was said, or how be phrased it. The fact that people are all hand wringy about it kinda proves what he is on about. People are way to sensetive..I can totally understand a man of the arts getting passionate about the sensitive few who detract from the study and creation of futher art...?

I dunno, just realised I missed seven pages :) Will read and return.

Stephen Fry is one of the most articulate people in the public eye. He is more capable than most of making a good point about censorship and self-pity without making it look like he thinks abuse is trivial (via the language he uses: "I'm sorry your uncle touched you in a bad place but..." WTF?) and people who are traumatised and damaged are the same as the people he's annoyed with for whatever he thinks they are doing to culture.
If he wants to.

If anything, his rant has had the opposite effect.

Never have I wanted cencorship more...

Why has my post been just completely removed no trace of my UN or anything ive not been rude to anyone, how bizarre O.T i wonder what his response will be probably feeble.

Paris Lees is also an arsehole.

(the author of the linked article).

I agree with MrsDeVere and BillSykesDog.

As for handwringy, is that what we're all doing? I thought people were debating, critiquing and analysing what SF said and the reactions to it, both in the media and on the thread.

There is an odd lopsided nature to discussions about free speech and censorship these days. One that tends to concentrate on the initial speaker and deprecate those who come after. If they are at all negative about what was said it is often suggested they are 'against freedom of speech'. No, just exercising a fundamentally important aspect of it, which is to discuss, react, rebut, endorse or whatever we want.

YANBU

I put Stephen Fry in the same bracket as that other pompous twat Boris Johnson.

Both are charismatic I suppose if you like smug, pompous twats. But not even half as clever or entertaining as they think they are.

Apparently both are meant to be 'national treasures' and of huge appeal to the 'general public'

I for one cannot see it and wish both would take themselves off to retirement from public life.

I would be really grateful if people could give egs of censorship in the arts

There has been discussion for a while now, about the "chilling effect" of "offence" leading to people being afraid to speak their mind. Which is the most sinister - and counter-productive - forms of censorship there is.

Sinister, because the audience never knows it happens.

Counter-productive, because it then acts as "proof" that "they are out to get you" and plays into the hands of extremists of all ilk. (You can't even call yourself English these days without being thrown in jail) ...

What did you think of the Danish cartoons the UK press printed of Mohammed, by the way ?

"Someone I love was abused as a child and they have let it ruin their life and have come close to destroying the lives of those around them because of it, including mine."

Child sexual abuse shouldn't really be compared in this way to being raped at 20, sorry (I was also raped at 20). The impact of trauma is much more fundamental in terms of development and as much as we might will it to be so, for some people the impact on the nervous system/brain combines with other subtle factors that reduce their ability to be resilient (for example upwards of 60% of young people who present to Child and Adolescent MH services will also have subtle language or learning disorders that have not been previously diagnosed). So as much as we want it to be, for the majority, it's not a matter of "letting it ruin their life". The damage is just too deep. Do you think people make these choices? Do you think people choose to live in misery because, you know, they just couldn't be arsed with being happy? Think about that logically. Human beings are hardwired to survive and thrive and if a certain individual isn't managing that, it's either because what's happened to them is so severe it has flooded their nervous system and reduced their ability to learn or because of a combination of trauma and hereditary factors that make recovery too hard.

One of the greatest tragedies of how we treat the most vulnerable and disadvantaged members of society is that we blame THEM for the consequences of heinous acts that were done to them without their ability to choose. Most people's actions make sense in the context of their biological make-up and learning history.

Stephen Fry is no exception and clearly behaves in ways which indicate that he has been subject to both trauma and a biological propensity to mental health disorder. Him and a lot of the rest of it. But you know, he is no more immune to self-pity than the rest of us, for all his anger/threat/disgust at it.

He's not talking about that (religious offence) though, is he, lurking

He specifically mentions Shakespeare. And child abuse.

I'm interested as to whether this specific censorship has occurred-or is it just a straw man sf can use to batter victims of child abuse

I agree that he is a pompous cock, and what he said was trivialising and insulting.

However, in the interests of fairness, he has issued an apology, with nary a flounce in sight.