R4 Front Row - Eric Gill + JK Rowling

[lanadelgrey]

Did anyone else hear tonight’s edition?
Tom Surcliffe discussing a book about morality and art - Drawing the Line by Erich Hatala Matthes, US philosopher. Really poor as a bit of discussion about can you listen to R Kelley, then Sutcliffe mentioned Eric Gill who the interviewee clearly knew nothing about nor had apparently heard of and after that she who should not be named and her views in trans issues plus mention of Daniel Radcliffe saying you can still love the message.
It was a v poor interview but worse was Sutcliffe completely mischaracterising JKR as being concerned about trans issues rather than women’s rights and stating I’m not quite so many words that she is transphobic. Interviewee obvs happy with this. It is being presented as accepted fact, not matter if debate and rolling JKR in with Kelley, convicted, Gill accepted pardophile and Hitler who also got a mention for his art.
Worth complaining about? Especially in the light of WORIADs?

Really? Actually of course I believe it. Definitely worth complaining about.

I heard this, it was a complete insult to JKR herself and to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.

They threw Patricia Highsmith in as well at one point because she "thought she was a psychopath"???

And yes they put JKR in the same league as Eric Gill, R Kelly and Hitler, for stating that humans can't change sex, sex matters and under certain circumstances women need single sex provision.

Fucking travesty.

That’s disgraceful. And frankly it would serve them right if her lawyers pointed that out to them.

She's obviously very busy writing best selling books etc but she really needs to get busy suing the shit out of bastards like this.

She does.

Oh god what bollocks.

Just listened, having read about it on Twitter,

Utterly one sided. Her views are apparently unpopular and difficult. Lots of people have problems with them.

The context was artists’ ‘transgressions’. RKelly, Eric Gill then straight to JKR’s ‘political’ views.

What about the vast majority of women who agree with her? Clearly we count for nothing. While the bandwagonning hordes who have not even read what she said, who shout ‘transphobe’ without a shred of evidence, get to see their view completely validated,

I hope they are flooded with complaints and forced to retract.

I was going to make a thread on this once I’d listened back as I was in the car and missed the beginning. I was fuming! I quite like Tom Sutcliffe usually but this was awful. He kept coming back to JKR repeatedly and to include her felt like he was saying she was comparable to Eric Gill and R Kelly. Also Daniel Radcliffe was quoted as if he was some kind of sage

As OP says, it was taken as read that JKR's opinions were beyond the pale...and these are views most likely held by the vast vast majority of people on this planet.

It was a perfect illustration of the BBC's genderist bias.

Disappointing but not surprising going on previous form.

@SwissBall

I was going to make a thread on this once I’d listened back as I was in the car and missed the beginning. I was fuming! I quite like Tom Sutcliffe usually but this was awful. He kept coming back to JKR repeatedly and to include her felt like he was saying she was comparable to Eric Gill and R Kelly. Also Daniel Radcliffe was quoted as if he was some kind of sage

You're so right about the Radcliffe bit, I wonder sometimes if the Beeb are trolling us...

Looked at his Wellesley blog page, "primary research interests concern the ethics, politics and aesthetics of cultural heritage, art and the environment". If those are his primary research interests I'd love to see his broader range; I can't think of much you couldn't file under one or other of those headings. Not exactly laser focused, is it?

@CompleteGinasaur

Looked at his Wellesley blog page, "primary research interests concern the ethics, politics and aesthetics of cultural heritage, art and the environment". If those are his primary research interests I'd love to see his broader range; I can't think of much you couldn't file under one or other of those headings. Not exactly laser focused, is it?

It's about the grant money, that's all.

It was bloody awful, the air was blue in my house and I’m definitely going to complain.

It proved to me that some sections of the BBC haven’t left Stonewall after all...

I listened to this but I wouldn’t characterise the discussion as others have in the above posts. JKR was differentiated in the discussion as being someone whose views were described as being ‘unpopular’ as opposite to R Kelly and Eric Gill whose actions were harmful to others. While I agree withJKR’s views and know many other women do too, it’s certainly true that in some circles her views can be fairly described as ‘unpopular’. It was not in my opinion unreasonable to mention JKR in discussion about moral judgments on the artist and separation of the artist from the art as this is an issue that leads to current heated discussion. I thought it was an interesting discussion and not unfair to JKR and in no way suggested she is transphobic which of course she is not, but it’s definitely fair to say that her quite reasonable views are unpopular with some. Also many who feel this way do struggle with how to separate the artist from her art.

I heard that, and honestly wanted to give up.

A close family member is in a relationship with a TW, who is lovely, the epitome of why 'no one should be worried, there is no threat etc etc'

However. A man whom I usually enjoy listening to will grandly expose the invulnerability of his sex class acknowledge that asserting biological sex is as harmful as tolerating someone who fucks their daughters and dogs.

The most obvious candidates for this type of discussion are Roman Polanski and Kevin Spacey.

www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rapist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run

I will listen to this tomorrow to give it a fair chance.

However, in advance, I observe that putting Joanne Rowling on a level with Eric Gill would be very risky for the BBC.

Either you say to thousands of women that objecting to "people who menstruate" as a dehumanising term is so horrendous that it puts them on a par with a man who sexually abused his daughters and pets.

Or, you say that a man sexually abusing his daughters and pets is just as reasonable as women objecting to being called menstruators.

So I hope that did not happen.

I didn’t hear that differentiation Carpetssss. It was a very smooth segue from RK and AG and all under the same banner of “transgressions”.

And by what measure are her views “unpopular”? With whom?

And, being really picky here, but I’m really angry and had enough,, is expressing a view about sex-based language and rights actually “political”? If I were to argue with someone of the RC religion that strict adherence to a contraception ban is harmful to women, is that a “political” view?

The word “political” suits the anti-sex matters lobby because it makes it easier to perpetuate the lie that belief in the importance of biological reality is allied to the right and therefore regressive.

To paraphrase JKRs message, but for MRAs…. Do what the fuck you want, to whoever the fuck you like, whether or not they are underage or blood relatives, the harshest you’ll be judged is alongside one of the most successful writers and generous philanthropists of our age.

Outrageous. JKR should take legal action.

Disgraceful of them, I didn't hear it but if ever there was a reason to not pay the licence fee. (And there's many reasons). Hit them where it hurts.

Their bullying tactics over licensing payments put many people off getting rid of it sadly.

The most obvious candidates for this type of discussion are Roman Polanski and Kevin Spacey.

Yes, these would have been better comparisons with the others.

That a woman knows what sex is and that it matters is considered controversial by the BBC, when it's the view of the vast majority globally, shows the extent of the ideological capture and where the BBC places itself with regard to the lessers.

As I say, disappointing but not surprising.

“Not saying her views are illegal or anything, they’re just unpopular with some people. So they’re perfect to discuss alongside the question of separating the dreadful crimes of men from their art. Definitely no inferences will be drawn about her views being as bad as the deeds of those men.”
Ugh.

Why not include Philip Pullman if it’s just about “views that are unpopular with some people”? His particular brand of atheism is hugely unpopular with lots of people, after all…

So they are saying a woman who campaigns to protect women's boundaries BECAUSE OF THE FACT MEN ABUSE is comparable to... A MAN WHO WAS A PAEDOPHILE AND A MAN WHO IS A SEX OFFENDER.

This is the purest misogyny.

@NitroNine

“Not saying her views are illegal or anything, they’re just unpopular with some people. So they’re perfect to discuss alongside the question of separating the dreadful crimes of men from their art. Definitely no inferences will be drawn about her views being as bad as the deeds of those men.” Ugh.

Why not include Philip Pullman if it’s just about “views that are unpopular with some people”? His particular brand of atheism is hugely unpopular with lots of people, after all…

Pullman is a much better example than Polanski and Spacey. Nothing criminal or immoral but many, many people disagree.

Side note I don't understand how Polanski has escaped criticism. His behaviour was far worse than the unproven allegations against Spacey.