David Sedaris signing WHORE in MN poster's book

[TeachesOfPeaches]

He talks about this incident in the new Adam Buxton podcast episode 79.

Provides a bit more context as to why he does this and the other outrageous things he has written/drawn at book signings.

I now think the OP was being unreasonable as this seems to be part and parcel of being a fan of his.

I’ll debate whether or not I’m women hating when you admit at groupie is not and never has been a neutral term, and that you only pretended to agree that it was to shore up another poster who agrees with you.

For the second time, I never said groupie is neutral nor did I agree with another poster that it was. Quote or drop it.

And many, many more non-neutral ones. In fact I couldn’t find a single definition on the first page of the search results that didn’t acknowledge the fact that the term is almost exclusively used to refer to women

Who is this aimed at? You need to sort out your attribution.

You called it a unisex term.

And it absolutely is. Are you saying men are never called groupies?

I just listened to the podcast this morning and I didn't know who he was but found all his stories very funny. Had never seen that other MN post so off to find that now.

Nope, sorry, still not buying into it. He's not a funny writer (I have read at least one of his books for sure) and this incident (and follow-up podcast) has done nothing to raise him in my estimation.

'I have never read him but I think he is an untalented misogynist and should be hounded yea until death'

If this doesn't just sum up the Internet age ......

Yes, I am saying that. I’ve never heard of it attributed to men and every single definition I have read this morning had stated that it applies almost universally to young women seeking sexual relationships with male celebrities, or offering themselves up for sex.

Now tell me how that isn’t misogynistic? Particularly in the context of a poster who was painting a portrait of me a someone to celebrity obsessed to think for myself?

I have to say, your accusations that I’m a woman hater are pretty fucking hollow when you’re willing to gaslight me and bend yourself through the mental gymnastics required to maintain the stance that ‘groupie’ isn’t a misogynistic insult.

I don't think that's what we're saying, Goddess.

@MrsBodger - what out of interest made you feel disappointed in Ricky Gervais?

@BuggerFlip

Link to previous thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3328764-Never-Meet-Your-Heroes-AIBU-or-was-this-rude-Title-edited-by-MNHQ

www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/28/now-we-are-five

Read this - and decide if he is a talentless misogynist. Or in fact - don't bother. No doubt there will be one phrase or expression you can find to lambast him with.

The defence of David Sedaris's use of whore as a dedication to a (former) fan is baffling.
He's being presented like some misunderstood genius.
Posters have claimed that 'whore' has changed its meaning, that it's even a word of empowerment .

But as I recall from the original thread, DS told the OP that he'd used it for a previous fan (a woman, of course) and she'd been upset and refused to take the book. Then he goes and bloody does it again! He already knew it was offensive and upsetting before he wrote it in the OPs book but does it anyway. What a complete and utter prick.

A PP states that DS would never do this just to upset someone, but rather to surprise them as that's his style or something.
He clearly and demonstrably IS happy to use this word to upset.

I have to say, your accusations that I’m a woman hater are pretty fucking hollow when you’re willing to gaslight me and bend yourself through the mental gymnastics required to maintain the stance that ‘groupie’ isn’t a misogynistic insult.

All that vitriol because I said 'groupie' is unisex Wow!

If you look up thread, I was the poster who said groupie brings to mind naive, exploited women. Funny how you ignore that 🤔

Regardless, you can't change the fact that groupie IS a unisex term, in the way that whore isn't.

There may be fewer male groupies, and they may not be exploited in the way that women are, but they do exist.

I make no comment whatsoever on his talent (I can't, as I haven't read him). My comments, and the comments of most PP, have been on his behaviour.

Lots of talented misogynists out there, for sure.

Regardless, you can't change the fact that groupie IS a unisex term, in the way that whore isn't. There may be fewer male groupies, and they may not be exploited in the way that women are, but they do exist.

This is just such bullshit. I’ve already discussed upthread the ways in which the word ‘whore’ has been used as a slur to oppress gay men, but you’re still trying to maintain that it can only ever apply to women, but somehow ‘groupie’ is unisex and not misogynistic?!

I know you don’t really believe that, and it’s a shame for you that you must be suppressing your discomfort with it because you’re so keen to make a point. If you were honest you would be saying ‘I don’t agree with DS but I also think it’s misogynistic to call someone a groupie’. You wouldn’t be letting a misogynistic insult slide, or defending it even, just because it came from someone who agreed with you in other ways.

Oh god. There's a certain sort of humour where insults are funny. Armando Ianucci. Ricky Gervais. Jo Brand. Sometimes it's affectionate. Sometimes it's not. Jo Brand: 'I've a special place for Nick Clegg in my heart. Face down in the Hackney Marshes with my boot on his head'.

Not for you? Fair enough. Each to their own.

Leaving the thread now 🖕🏻 Byeeeee

Insulting public figures (particularly politicians) for laughs is fine: it goes with the territory; insulting someone privately and directly, and writing profanities on their property is completely different.

salem gaslighting? Great. So what you're saying is you can sling out the insults, but someone says one things about you and it's abusive and gaslighting and playing games. Sure, doll. 'You get two chances with me' - wow you really think you're something special, dont you.

antigone I find your defense of misogynistic language baffling? Groupie as unisex is a new one on me. Fangirl has a totally different tone to fanboy as I'm sure you know.

I have not defended the use of whore at all so no need to go into that. I just find it a fairly whatever word and nothing to get too excited about.

Ricky Gervais is frequently an arse, though, and Armando Iannucci’s best insults are put in the mouths of characters who certainly aren’t intended to be read as great people whose behaviour is above criticism.

“But it’s intended as humour” isn’t a general get-out-of-jail-free card for criticism. Bernard Manning probably thought he was hilarious.

When did mumsnet become reddit?

This thread = flounce central

I listened to the podcast this morning. Never heard of him before and hadn't seen the MN thread.
Someone upthread bet that he wouldn't insult male fans.
Do we know this is true? It doesn't seem likely.
Rik Mayall was notorius for signing insulting autographs and his fans loved to be called a by him.
If that's what this guy does, and all his fans know this, I don't think this one instance is any worse.
If he's singling out female fans for abuse (which I doubt) then yes, unacceptable.

deydo Yes. I was thinking about Rick Mayall and The Young Ones. Same vein of humour in some ways. DS is in the same tradition regarding shock response, with obvious differences.

Not just this thread, Op. Every Mumsnet thread on a subject where opinions might diverge seems to descend into a bunfight with personal abuse.

I’m astonished posters think this is defensible or ok because he has a dark sense of humour?
Not funny. And using that word is misogynistic whether conscious or unconscious.
@Olennaswimple had it spot on. “She knew what he was like before she went to see him”

"Rik Mayall was notorius for signing insulting autographs and his fans loved to be called a by him."

What is the word you omitted?