Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Trying to understand Brand supporters

179 replies

mids2019 · 23/09/2023 06:45

I am trying to understand why some people are actually trying to support Russell Brand.

I think a lot of it is down to disappointment that a figure they may have once liked has brought himself into disgrqce. My partner liked Michael Jackson and the accusations by the two men about him at the time really did disillusion them about her youthful admirations; Brand is not Jackson but there may be a similar thought process.

I think it also makes people feel 'who's next' and realise that the media has been adept at covering the behaviour of big star names (Schofiled, Spacey, etc.). Possibly people would rather have

the idea of Brand being innocent than let go of cherished views that we a celebrity circuit of people who are 'the good guys'.

I have noticed that a lot of the celeb circuit in radio and television are a little reluctant to speak about the subjects Brand has brought up. A few programs have touched upon the topic tangentially and it obviously makes the main news but a lot of the morning DJs such as Chris Evans.etc haven't mentioned it all on their shows which I feel is quite strange. It all lends itself to a view that the celebs who we all invest in are fallible and we could be waking up one morning to find another has a strong of allegations against them.

Possibly there is part of human nature that allows the elite to have led way iin their behaviour towards others?.There have been historical cases where rich men (aristocracy) have basically had the right to assault lower class women and maybe this is a modern extension of this?

There are obviously the misogynist conspiracy theorists but I think there are also others that may be looking to defend the antics of men in the 2000s as they were of that period and they don't particular like the whole era being stained in their memories. There are also a few that think Brand is being judged by 2023 standards when a lot of the alleged crimes happened in the 2000s where although the law was the same , in my opinion, the culture wasn't and Brand was maybe an extreme of behaviour shown by many men.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
Newbutoldfather · 23/09/2023 08:37

@tiggergoesbounce ,

I would think that we are more likely to see civil cases against him than criminal ones.

In some ways this is a good thing, as the verdict is based on balance of probability vs beyond reasonable doubt. OTOH, the increasing use of these (Prince Andrew comes to mind) does mean that there is a significant incentive to fabricate claims (ad opposed to criminal cases).

We will always know he is, by most standards, immoral and misogynistic. Many of us may suspect he went further, but doubt we will ever know.

Desdemonadryeyes · 23/09/2023 08:37

Liz Kershaw wrote an article in the paper yesterday. She’s been trying to tell people about him for years apparently, to no avail.

RealityFan · 23/09/2023 08:38

How many of us took against Kevin Spacey the moment he was accused? I think I did, I'm sure of it. The moment the accusations came in, he lost everything. Not just all his work, but all his friends. The whole media bar none took against him. And look how that turned out.

WarriorN · 23/09/2023 08:40

No one is talking about the fact that this is also bbc trial by media.

Quite a lot of what's coming out is where the bbc have clearly been culpable.

And others

WarriorN · 23/09/2023 08:40

Desdemonadryeyes · 23/09/2023 08:37

Liz Kershaw wrote an article in the paper yesterday. She’s been trying to tell people about him for years apparently, to no avail.

As have a few others it appears

FrancescaContini · 23/09/2023 08:41

Desdemonadryeyes · 23/09/2023 08:37

Liz Kershaw wrote an article in the paper yesterday. She’s been trying to tell people about him for years apparently, to no avail.

Same happened with JS but nobody in the corporation wanted to know.

nauticant · 23/09/2023 08:41

Perhaps a distinction needs to be drawn between the responsible journalism at the centre of the storm, that I think it is a good thing, and all the rest raging about with people calling for heads to roll which seems to be people using the storm for their own purposes.

Whatever happens, I think the wrong thing to do would be to prevent the responsible journalism.

icallitasplodge · 23/09/2023 08:42

Of course I’m cynical about the media too, these people employed him in spite of the rumours, enabled him and in the case of channel 4, during their own investigations.

But if Jimmy Savile had been left in the hands of the police alone, he’d still be considered a good and noble man.

WarriorN · 23/09/2023 08:43

Listening to Doon Mackichan on woman's hour this week, loads of people have known and no one listened.

She doesn't talk about him a lot but she describes an appallingly misogynistic environment as a woman working in TV.

Daniel Sloss too.

GoodOldEmmaNess · 23/09/2023 08:44

There are also a few that think Brand is being judged by 2023 standards when a lot of the alleged crimes happened in the 2000s where although the law was the same , in my opinion, the culture wasn't and Brand was maybe an extreme of behaviour shown by many men.

Perhaps it is because I am oldish now (60), but I always feel a bit wrongfooted when people speak of alleged variations in standards over just a few decades. I don't really see the line of progress that these alleged variations seem to imply.

In the 2000s (and in the 90s, and in the 80s) people tended to have the exactly same optimistic illusion that they have now. Namely, the belief that "these days, unlike the past, we know that it is wrong to be sexually exploitative. We are less likely to tolerate the terrible wrongdoing of men in positions of power."

Once you have seen people tell themselves this once a decade or so, it is easier to percieve a more depressing reality: While in some respects things get better for women, overall it continues to be just as easy as it ever was for men in power to abuse women (and/or children) and to frame themselves (by means of whatever zeitgeisty language is current at the time) as behaving properly or even progressively.

Occasional spasms of holding individual men to account will occur - when certain specific truths become too obvious to ignore, and when the passage of time makes it easy for people who should be ashamed of their inaction to exploit a framing of the past ('oh but we all know so much better now') that gives them a get out of jail free card ). But those spasms do not, as we optimistically imagine, amount to a steady line of progress to enlightement. We just circle and circle in the same fundamental exploitation.

I bought into the idea of progress when I was younger. I imagined my parents - my mother even - understood less than I did about what sexual equality was and how it could be achieved. I thought we, the young people of the 80s, were all more enlightened. But we weren't. We were just in the next iteration of the same cycle

As far as I understand it, some of the tenets of today's feminism among younger women has the same character of 'knowing better'.
'Sex positivity' for example, seems to portray an earlier generation of feminists as failing to understand that women's equality included the right to enjoy liberated sex on their own terms, without shaming, etc. (I may have misunderstood this, but this is what it looks like). Of course we understood that. But feminism of the seventies and eighties was reacting against the appalling pressure under which women were placed by the earlier incarnation of 'sex positivity', namely the concept of the 'permissive society' in the wake of the introduction of the contraceptive pill.
Women were expected (were told) to view effective contraception as the starting gun for leaping into a sexuality that was 'just like mens', performed on men's terms, for men's gratification. So feminism of the 70s/80s was partly about protecting women from this pressure, demanding the space for women to shape their own version of liberated sexuality, unpressured by a culture of in-your-face suck-my-dick-till-you-choke male desire.

Eventually our voices were heard to the extent that there was some small movement towards respecting women's space to say No. But the circle turned again and we arrived at the sheer decadence of male comedians (and their 'new lads' acolytes). Their schtick was the 'ironic' performance of exactly the same male entitlement, placing exactly the same requirement on women to want sex all the time on men's terms, simultaneously requiring women to pretend to themselves that this was part of their own sexual liberation.

Just now (this month, this year, maybe a few years if we are lucky) there is a little disgusted shudder that is temporarily turning society back to admonishing these men. But I'm pretty sure there is a new generation of men who are doing exactly the same thing, just with a different cultural cloak now that irony is so tired (such as the cloak provided by so-called progressive language around sex). And so it goes on.

MrsTwartle · 23/09/2023 08:44

But if Jimmy Savile had been left in the hands of the police alone, he’d still be considered a good and noble man.

Not just the police. Hospital chiefs knew and still allowed him access all areas including where young nurses lived.

Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 08:46

I am not a Brand supporter but I don't think he should lose his livelihood because of unproven alligations.

The anti vax/conspiracy theory content had already destroyed his credibility on ‘MSM’ (how he acquired it again after Sachs is another question). However I would assume that Brand wouldn’t want to have anything to do with MSM anyway.

chatenoire · 23/09/2023 08:46

I believe he did it (or don't doubt it) BUT I believe he has changed. My DH (who is also an addict) read his book and helped him get out of his addictions, something that support groups and therapy weren't able to

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 08:49

nauticant · 23/09/2023 08:31

If we all had to wait for the authorities in the proper way to act to make things right and felt compelled to not cause a fuss in the media, can you imagine how that would go?

If we all had to wait for the authorities in the proper way”

I’m trying to imagine….

How long did the Met Police say it was going to take to investigate the police officers who are suspended? How many suspended officers are there? 1000? How many for alleged sex offences?

How long would we have to wait for them to deal with that before women could report sexual assaults with any expectation of that being a safe thing to do?

MintJulia · 23/09/2023 08:50

'I don’t support him and have always disliked him. But trial by media without even arrest? '

This. RB has never hidden what he is, a nasty vulgar little creep. The television companies wanted to appeal to an audience that thought that type of performer was funny and cool. It wasn't. It was always distasteful and unpleasant.

Now suddenly because some women have had the courage to protest at his vile behaviour, the broadcast companies are acting as if they didn't know. Of course they did - it's what they chose to buy.

tiggergoesbounce · 23/09/2023 08:53

The anti vax/conspiracy theory content had already destroyed his credibility on ‘MSM’ (how he acquired it again after Sachs is another question). However I would assume that Brand wouldn’t want to have anything to do with MSM anyway

I dont think he does want anything to do with MSM, i think people are referring to his YouTube channels being suspended/cancelled/silenced for him to create his own content.

He obviously does have a large following who buy into his narratives of different things.

While im not a fan, it does still amaze me how people happily believe and defend the MSM.

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 08:54

Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 08:25

Leaving aside the question of criminal charges, Russell Brand sells a product - himself -whose market value has risen and fallen. He profited from acting like a dick, and now he is finding that difficult to sell. He just has his niche market of conspiracy theorists.

Less a trial, more the ups and downs of business. Caveat venditor.

Edited

“Russell Brand sells a product - himself -whose market value has risen and fallen. He profited from acting like a dick, and now he is finding that difficult to sell.”

Great insight.

icallitasplodge · 23/09/2023 08:55

Speaking of his addictions… I notice how he now calls his behaviour “promiscuity” and not a sex addiction, like he labelled it before.

So that behaviour is now considered promiscuity (his change of language therefore creating the suggestion that these women were also promiscuous) instead of there being a lack of control on his part.

Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 08:56

But if Jimmy Savile had been left in the hands of the police alone, he’d still be considered a good and noble man.

Also Jimmy Savile was dead before his activities were made public - he no longer had any power.

Tanith · 23/09/2023 08:58

There are a number of reasons why I feel very uncomfortable, most of them already covered.

What happens to all those women who are assaulted by someone who isn't famous or of media interest?
Well, they get on with it, or they report to the police.
But the police and judiciary system are both apparently so broken as to be useless. So women won't go to them and they're not any more inclined to trust the system after these media frenzies.

Why aren't we using this to force change in the system? That was done back in the early 80s when the famous rape interview at Reading Police station provoked fury and outrage.

I also feel very angry that one of the beneficiaries in all this - Channel 4 - is also one of those that has ignored what was going on. They're complicit, yet they're making money and being lauded.

If Russell Brand is guilty, I hope they throw away the key.
He's unlikely ever to get a fair trial now and one of the companies that allowed this seems to be doing their best to make sure he never faces justice. Perhaps that's one reason why they're doing this - to avoid scrutiny over their own actions.

Datun · 23/09/2023 08:59

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 07:54

Datun, your Google search link above includes this article from six years ago.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5048511/BBC-refuses-probe-Chris-Evans-sex-bullying-claims.html

Including everyone’s favourite: the “It’s a witch hunt!” defence.

Yeah, I'm sure there are quite a few men in the media desperate to keep a low profile, because that sort of behaviour was tediously commonplace.

sleepyscientist · 23/09/2023 09:03

Not defending him as a person, for me it's the fact that this is getting dragged up time and time again more as a moral issue that should stay in the past.

For me it's 100% it happened in the 00's and was acceptable, plus he was always known as being a sex pest so why is it suddenly a problem now. At the time it was a running joke so it's needs to be considered against that standard.

I was young in the 00's if he had been available it would have been 100% consensual and seen as a bragging point to have slept with Russel brand in your teens. Lots of girls my age were chasing slightly older guys, footballers were paying out for kiss and tells etc. It was more acceptable for a man or woman to sleep with someone in a position of power to get what they wanted. Hell this is the time when Kim K sex tape came out and she was suddenly famous.

Do I have regrets, possibly but it's a more a cringe OMG why the hell did I do that blush get on with life than something that plays on my mind. I imagine most 00's teen and early twenties have similar stories.

It also opens up a can of worms around consent and put us all in a very uncomfortable position. As a mum to a DS it's almost becoming you need written consent, as if the woman decides afterwards she didn't consent she defiantly right. That's a very slippery slope that could change a lot of our society and isn't a path I would want to go down.

It's also concerning that this is being considered rape in the same sense as stranger rape. Which dilutes the severity of the original definition of offence which in the 00's was largely stranger rape.

Maybe we need to redefine the law to reflect what we think of now and beyond. Something like stranger rape vs they went back to the hotel together, she thinks she didn't consent vs him saying it was consensual which isn't taken through the criminal system more re-education opportunity.

Even having to think about this is making me realise how much nicer of a time the 00s was and feel for our kids futures in this world.

swimsong · 23/09/2023 09:09

LoobiJee · 23/09/2023 07:21

A few programs have touched upon the topic tangentially and it obviously makes the main news but a lot of the morning DJs such as Chris Evans.etc haven't mentioned it all on their shows which I feel is quite strange.

Which Chris Evans? Chris Evans the radio presenter who, aged 35, married an 18 year old in 2001?

Yeah it’s really strange that he isn’t passing comment on a former radio presenter who had a 16 year old girlfriend when he was in his 30s back in the 2000s.

Edited

A 16yr old girlfriend?

I think the enormity of that account really isn't sinking in with people, it's taken me a while.

She was not his girlfriend, they weren't dating. It's not even just the oral rape. He picked up a young anorexic virgin and groomed her into being his sex slave for three months.

His treatment of her was a transfer of the way he wrote about treating his dog as a teenager - alternating between affection & cruelty.

Why are we talking about anything else?

This isn't a matter of changing standards. Many of the supporters that he's picked since he started posting alt.right conspiracy clickbait also support Andrew Tate. They are impressed that he's abused & raped young women.

Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 09:09

I dont think he does want anything to do with MSM, i think people are referring to his YouTube channels being suspended/cancelled/silenced for him to create his own content.

They are broadcast but not monetised on YouTube.

Other services are available and he is using them, e.g. Rumble.

The ‘MSM’ prints corrections, is monitored by bodies like OFCOM and the press complaints commission, and tbe broadcaster/publisher is clear.

Who do you complain to if Russell Brand creates a video that doesn’t comply with journalistic/broadcasting standards?

Newbutoldfather · 23/09/2023 09:10

@sleepyscientist ,

‘It also opens up a can of worms around consent and put us all in a very uncomfortable position. As a mum to a DS it's almost becoming you need written consent, as if the woman decides afterwards she didn't consent she defiantly right. That's a very slippery slope that could change a lot of our society and isn't a path I would want to go down.’

I think that there is a legitimate debate to be had re consent, but that isn’t what the four women are claiming. They say very specifically that they said no and he continued to force them.

As for different types of rape, judges have discretion in sentencing. I don’t think any proven rape should lead to a reeducation course though, unless we also think about this for other serious crimes.