Just heard appalling man-excusing interview on R4

[extraspoons]

Just heard John Humphries interview some guy about letters coming to light revealing that Dickens, in his determination to get rid of his wife so he could be with his mistress, tried to get his wife incarcerated in a mental asylum (despite there being no evidence of her having any mental illness). HIs wife in the letters said that ( i paraphrase as cannot remember it all) 'the law, bad as it is, he could not quite contrive to achieve his purpose.'

Humphries said, it doesn't make him a bad person though, does it?
Interviewee, 'Oh no, and he did great work after this episode for Great Ormand Street hospital.'
Humphries, 'maybe he needed some help for his mental health himself'

WTF?

Actually, yes, trying to deprive your wife of her liberty and have your sane wife imprisoned in a mental asylum so you can shack up with your mistress does make you a bad person actually. It also makes you an extraordinary hypocrite to publicly proclaim your great morality and harangue others, whilst committing great evil (imprisoning innocents for you own benefit is evil) in your personal life. As Ani Difranco said, ' You can talk of great philosophy, but if you can't be kind to people every single day it doesn't mean that much to me.'

Normally I am quite sympathetic to people who behave badly in a period of great distress. But, seriously, I do not count wanting to shack up with your mistress an incident of great distress. Its not exactly Helen Archer cracking after years of emotional abuse and control is it?

I am just bloody fuming that the appalling complete and utter disregard of any human rights for his wife is just brushed aside as an inconvenience to be ignored to maintain the reputation of this Great Man.

Women are just dispensable it seems.

Yes that question got me screaming at the radio too.

Humphrys is just awful, doesn't surprise me.
Hoping for him to retire from Mastermind so I can start watching it again.

My Irish maternal grandmother tried to get my mum incarcerated in a mental asylum as punishment for defying her fate as an eternal domestic slave to my grandmother, by eloping to England with my Dad. I wonder if Humphreys would say that doesn't make my granny a bad person too? Or is that excuse reserved to the elite male intelligensia?

Deydod - but that bloke AGREED with him! There must be a whole cohort of people who think like that!

Lovely bit of gaslighting from
Humphrey's and guest first thing this morning.

Up to a point.

Dickens was a horrible man who wrote great stories and did many good things. He was progessive on many matters of social reform, but as a writer his female characters leave much to be desired: Mad Old Bats, spherical dragons and moaning wet drips.

He was a man of his time. On balance, he was good for the world, but maybe not for those immediately around him.

I loathe Humphreys and that conversation just gave me more reason to do so.

I heard that too. I wanted to butt in: "It doesn't make him a bad writer but it makes him a terrible human being." (Whole other argument about flawed writers, artists etc...)

The bare bones of the story aren't new - I've been meaning to read Claire Tomalin's Charles Dickens: A Life for years. But Humphrys - disgraceful but not surprising.

Had it been the other way around, they never, NEVER, would've shown the same sympathy for the wife.

You think the beeb would have learned from Savile: another man famed for his public good deeds and charity work who did horrible things out of the public eye.

I’m glad you started this thread because it saved me doing it. The interview also reminded me of the coverage of family annihilators, who are so often reported as pillars of the community who had an inexplicable “off” day.

I’ve already complained about Humphries this week (and had a rage-inducing brush off from BBC complaints), but it was easy and quick so I’ll probably lodge another tonight. I am reaching a tipping point where I’m going to have to get my news elsewhere.

That's appalling!

I was actually watching an episode of Juliet Bravo on to last night (which was what, the 80s?) where a man who has been left by his wife was beating up his teenaged daughter, black eyes, bruises, ambulances called, in front of three other kids. The female inspector took this to court. The judge (female) and social worker (one male one female) and the father all argued that poor bloke, his wife had left him, he was holding down a job, making a home, it wasn't surprising his temper and drinking got away from him, and basically the battering of a fifteen year old girl was fair enough under the circumstances. Best to not break up the family. Girl was left to be beaten as and when bastard of a father needed to let his frutrstaions out.

The needs of a female should never be an impediment to supporting the feelings of the obviously far more important man. Like the swine who kill their kids and wives - it's always said, poor chap, he was a good dad, what drove him to it?

I didn’t hear the whole interview but did hear this question and I was a bit WTF?! And figured I hadn’t heard the whole thing. Glad it wasn’t just me!

It is a draft and meaningless question any way - you can’t just label a person good or bad.

But it came across very weird to appear to consider a person ‘good’ because as against attempting to have your innocent wife incarcerated you did good charitable deeds. Appears to somewhat minimise the offence. What was it take on this scale to tip the balance to ‘bad’? Rape, murder, joining ISIS?

That said, I suspect it was just a badly expressed response to a poorly framed question.

I didn't listen to Today, but I read about this in The Times today, which struck a more appropriate note.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dickenss-dastardly-plan-for-his-wife-r9tzllz9j?shareToken=a18765209391823eaf3cd046b1b82bf0

Maybe Dickens was a prototype for the male SWJs of today. Flawed men who support or lead worthy causes (and yes, Dickens did truly great work on social reforms) but who are subject to the corrosive effect of 'moral licensing' - often especially with respect to women, it seems.

Dickens was one of our greatest writers and did some good by drawing attention to many people's reality. There's no taking that away from him. But we can and should delete the image of him as cuddly & benign. It's well documented how he treated his wife and I strongly recommend Claire Tomalin's biography of him - anything but hagiography. I saw a Miriam Margoles (sp?) one woman show about him years back and his obsession with 17 year old girls was much discussed. No, we wouldn't have liked the man very much.

thanks for The Times link Errol. I am very much enjoying the comments

She had 10 of his children and he tried to have her admitted to a mental asylum so he could make off with an 18 year old, sounds like a lovely bloke. Maybe in light of this, innocent school kids can stop being tormented by his literary snooze fest

Dickens’ not Dickens’s really? Jesus’ not Jesus’s. Etc. I despair

to put this in context, this all happened in 1858. Catherine Dickens was only 43. 7 years previously their 8 month old daughter had died. Their youngest son Edward was 6 in 1858. Cedric was 9, Phillip 11.

Not only did Dickens attempt to imprison an innocent woman, he attempted to deprive his children of their mother.

Not only did Dickens attempt to imprison an innocent woman, he attempted to deprive his children of their mother

And the mother of her children. But it's okay - because he said good things about a children's hospital, so he's still a good egg, apparently.

Maybe Dickens was a prototype for the male SWJs of today. Flawed men who support or lead worthy causes (and yes, Dickens did truly great work on social reforms) but who are subject to the corrosive effect of 'moral licensing' - often especially with respect to women, it seems

Yeah, see, what this tells you is that their social justice campaigning says more about how they want to feel about themselves , rather than saying anything about their actual character.

We are all able to be good when there is no real cost to us.

Though for most of us the bar isn't so low as to be set at an 18 year old we want to live with at the cost of our partner losing their liberty and children their mother....

But it's okay - because he said good things about a children's hospital, so he's still a good egg, apparently.

It's okay because he was male and had needs. Jeez.

Didn’t Thomas Hardy also treat his wife dreadfully so he could keep a mistress?

I think it was not unusual for men to try to get rid of their wives as divorce was so frowned upon. Utter bastards the lot of them.

History is full of men who treated their wives badly so that they could pursue their own sexual interests.

Male + Genius = Abuser it appears.

What do we do when the art we love was created by a monster?

www.vox.com/culture/2018/10/11/17933686/me-too-separating-artist-art-johnny-depp-woody-allen-louis-ck

Flawed men

I also think we need to stop with the 'flawed men' rhetoric. Trying to incarcerate a woman, a woman with young children at that - so you can set up a new life with a new woman is not a 'flaw'. It's criminal abuse of the worst kind.

Ted Hughes. Two dead women left in his wake, one that he was married to who recorded suffering DV and the other who was the OW. Both committed suicide, one of them taking their child with her.