Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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
icallitasplodge · 23/09/2023 09:10

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.

You don’t really need written consent, of all rape cases recorded only 1.9% ever get a charge. So it’s more likely the girl would go away quietly knowing the police would not progress her complaint.

this is why only the most violent of rapes are charged, and why it perpetuates the idea of “she lied”. There is no proof and can never be, as the police won’t even investigate without clear evidence that leads to a charge. So it looks like “she lied” when in fact it was just unprovable.

tiggergoesbounce · 23/09/2023 09:14

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

Are you saying you believe the MSM are independently and properly governed which ensure they act in a proper manner ?

Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 09:15

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.

It really, really wasn’t acceptable.

I can also imagine exactly the kind of beardy bro who would use ‘Sex positivity’ and ‘don’t kink shame‘ and ‘I’m a feminist’ to abuse a vulnerable sixteen year old now.

tiggergoesbounce · 23/09/2023 09:16

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

If he is creating his own content and it broke standards then the site would act accordingly.

Theeyeballsinthesky · 23/09/2023 09:17

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.

this! Whether or not he’s committed criminal acts, he’s just another TV personality who had the moment in the sun & now it’s gone aided by the fact he doesn’t seem to have any discernible talent beyond self promotion. It happens to tons of celebrities

he monetised while he could - presenting, acting, writing his autobiography‘I’m a massive cunty wunty or whatever it was called - and now he can’t

for the record I do think he’s guilty but it’s his enablers at bbc, channel 4 & elsewhere who need to answer questions too. How many other of their male presenters are they/have they enabled in the same way

tiggergoesbounce · 23/09/2023 09:18

I am now going to watch the tv programme to form an opinion on it.

Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 09:18

If he is creating his own content and it broke standards then the site would act accordingly.

whose standards? Which law? In which country?

tiggergoesbounce · 23/09/2023 09:19

whose standards? Which law? In which country?

You asked the question??? What standards did you mean ???

bombastix · 23/09/2023 09:21

I was young when Brand's career was taking off. I did not like him or the programmes he presented because they seemed exploitative and he was a sexual bully.

He does stand out because someone has shone a light on him. I do not think that his attitude was that unusual. He associated with men like Neil Strauss and other men who talked explicitly about how to manipulate women into sex. It was open at the time. It seemed that this was a reasonable and okay thing to discuss.

There has always been this intense, sexualised media targetted at young people and he was perfect for that. I am not all that convinced it has changed. What I also dislike is the idea he is some sort of intellect with insight. He is a manipulative narcissist and we would do better to educate young women on what that looks like rather than actively promote it as desirable.

SequinsandStiIettos · 23/09/2023 09:33

I feel sorry for him only in that if it is not taken to court, it feels like a Not Proven verdict. He's in limbo but it will undoubtedly be the only thing that he's ever remembered for. See also John Leslie and Tim Westwood. Not sure either that the recent exoneration of Kevin Spacey will have any meaningful effect on his own cancellation.
Occam's razor means this IS justice for those they all wronged but
a) a trial for historic sex crime(s) would bring better closure
b) there is zero space in the court of public opinion for any redemption
What would I want to see if Brand is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

  1. a genuine apology and compensation to his victims
  2. community service for five years: I'm not even kidding - the man has charisma and can do public speaking. If he were to visit every young man currently idolising the likes of Andrew Tate and being exposed to Only Fans and explain how early exposure to porn warped his mindset and how his "bantz" and misogyny led to his public disgrace and how No does mean No and now his daughters will google him and only see the word Rapist every single time. That might be more effective than current PSHE education.
Merrymouse · 23/09/2023 09:33

tiggergoesbounce · 23/09/2023 09:19

whose standards? Which law? In which country?

You asked the question??? What standards did you mean ???

I explained the people who oversee tv and newspaper standards. Regardless of whether you like the Sun, their owners are clear and they are subject to U.K. libel laws.

Who do you complain to if somebody broadcasts a video on the internet? What standards have they agreed to comply with? Who do you contact to complain about E.g Sandyhook truther videos?

Eroal · 23/09/2023 09:36

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.

This is so insightful and true. There’s always a new way to placate patriarchy whilst painting it as liberation - free love in the 60s, ladettes in the 90s and 00s, shaming TERFs today. It’s not that we have really ‘moved on’ just that the cultural face of misogyny has shifted.

bombastix · 23/09/2023 09:37

Tbh Brand is looking at custody for these charges, not community service. If true, it's right that he goes to prison for years.

TeenEyeroll · 23/09/2023 09:38

I haven’t rtft but I think the only work of RB’s which should be pulled/demonetised, are pieces where he is openly celebrating the sexual abuse of women and girls. Everything else should stay until he has a proper trial - if that’s what’s going to happen.

Regarding the ‘of its time’ defence - it happening about 15 years ago - does anyone else not remember the horrendous backlash against feminism that had been roaring since the early 1990s?

No comedy show would be complete without a man crowing about violence, particularly sexual violence towards women and children, in the name of jokes. Our beloved Ricky Gervais joked about abusing elderly women with dementia, Darren Carr joked that rape was ‘surprise sex’, Frankie Boyle constantly came out with vile stuff, it was relentless and chilling - there was that guy who said to a woman who heckled him about his sexism in his show ‘wouldn’t it be funny if everyone turned around and raped you here right now’ - he later got the opportunity to redeem himself on Big Brother. Lads’ Mags were everywhere with demeaning, images and strap lines showing hostility towards women and girls, right in your face wherever you went. Lap dancing was being normalised, as were other aspects of the sex industry.

Russell Brand was a tiny drop in a huge misogynist, rape-celebrating, cultural ocean at the time. Of course people didn’t think he really meant it, otherwise we’d think they all really meant it. I think Russell Brand showed far more warmth towards women than all the other hostile and repulsive misogynists oppressing women in that era. I don’t think he should be singled out to be honest.

bombastix · 23/09/2023 09:41

Boyle is disgusting - I note now he's trying to change his profile but he is seedy.

pickledandpuzzled · 23/09/2023 09:46

I think some men who behaved similarly because they were 'edgy' now have daughters and are horrified at themselves. How they deal with that was to try and forget it, blame it on the era, but they know.

RB was not only edgy and dark, he was also actively sadistically abusive.

The 'why now' question- well it's taken this long for the snowball to gather momentum. Lots of women were trying, but RB's lawyers were able to firefight effectively. The momentum finally gathered after years of work.

Fuck off with the 'why now' nonsense.

AdamRyan · 23/09/2023 09:52

I am not going add anything about the "trial by media" stuff because I've said plenty on other threads and it's boring

But op said I think it's a good point there are probably those who feel that Brand has somehow redeemed himself and that the slew of allegations are somehow unfair given that he has a stable family life with children. However given fact Brands past behaviour wasn't in reality a secret his wife must have had a notion that one day this exact scenario may have been a possibility.

I think this really taps into a much deeper notion that mens sexual misbehaviour is caused by women.

E.g. when he was single he was promiscuous, it was no secret and women should have been more careful if they didn't want to be mistreated. But now he has the love of a good woman that's redeemed him and his previous behaviour was in the past.

I'm paraphrasing but I think lots of people have those beliefs.

The reality is abusers don't change. He was horrible to Katy Perry, who he was married to. He's probably pretty horrible to his wife. And I'm sure he hasn't stopped using prostitutes. Why would he?

museumum · 23/09/2023 09:54

I’m just entirely blah about it. I don’t support him but in also not shocked and horrified. It was blatantly in your face throughout. I’m 47 so aware of him from the start as a young adult. I’m not in any way surprised he was sleeping with a 16 year old and it is legal although immoral.
im also in no way surprised he did cross the legal line and sexually assault.

i don’t like all the crappy papers/websites gleefully jumping on the bandwagon with their own “revelations”. That is the worst side of “MSM”. And I have sympathy for the anti-Murdoch people as although I don’t doubt the journalistic standards at the Times I do hate the power of the Murdoch empire.

so I guess I’m not a brand supporter but I’m not going to join in the public vilification either.

MariePaperRoses · 23/09/2023 09:55

I can't stand him but it's obvious it's a witch hunt.

I think it's disgusting that he has not been taken to court and found guilty of any of the alleged crimes but the government has written to media companies to dump him and deny him an income.

Innocent until proven guilty.

I really do not like him but if they can go after a wealthy celebrity and shut him down, then they will easily be able to shut down ordinary people who criticise the government, because that's what all this is really about.

BethDuttonsTwin · 23/09/2023 09:56

SoGladofYou · 23/09/2023 07:19

I don’t support him and have always disliked him. But trial by media without even arrest? And I know all the issues with the police atm. Still.

This. I'm not "a supporter" but once you accept, even celebrate the complete ruination of people and their lives without due legal process then you can never complain when it comes for you and yours. Personally find it terrifying.

pickledandpuzzled · 23/09/2023 09:57

The issue isn't only that he crossed the line and committed sexual assault.

It's that the establishment promoted a culture where he was not only enabled to do that, but then he was able to cover it up.

There are many men out there who got away with it. This one managed to make it a trade mark and profit from it.

pickledandpuzzled · 23/09/2023 09:59

Do we not publicise and warn against scams anymore then, as they've not been proved in court?

I'd better tell my team to stop weeding out the African princes, ticket resellers and hindered a of similar posters as they are innocent until guilty in a court of law.

We'll have to carry on letting innocent people lose money to them because everyone knows, they were stupid to fall for it and simultaneously they are allowed free speech until they are imprisoned.

Desecratedcoconut · 23/09/2023 09:59

It doesn't take 20+ years to put together the dots though, does it? I think, "why now?' is as important as, 'why not then?' Or rather, 'if he were still the darling of the entertainment industry - would it have happened at all?' Swiftly followed by, 'Who else operates under the 'darling' radar?'

A week ago it seemed that talk was landing on an entire industry that was about to get handed its ass. Was that just bluster? Or will the media sit on its hands until those products lose viable capital in their own ecosystem?

OnAFrolicOfMyOwn · 23/09/2023 10:04

writing his autobiography‘I’m a massive cunty wunty or whatever it was called

😂

TeenEyeroll · 23/09/2023 10:06

pickledandpuzzled · 23/09/2023 09:46

I think some men who behaved similarly because they were 'edgy' now have daughters and are horrified at themselves. How they deal with that was to try and forget it, blame it on the era, but they know.

RB was not only edgy and dark, he was also actively sadistically abusive.

The 'why now' question- well it's taken this long for the snowball to gather momentum. Lots of women were trying, but RB's lawyers were able to firefight effectively. The momentum finally gathered after years of work.

Fuck off with the 'why now' nonsense.

Yes. That guy from Blur who now has a cheese farm bit the arse of the singer of a female indie band when they were touring together. They were raised to be better men, but the permissiveness and actual encouragement of sexism and the degradation of women changed the cultural atmosphere. One of the architects of that awful cultural shift was Toby Young, who has redeemed himself now. The era was all cocaine, decadence, objectifying women in an attempt for privileged middle-class men to feel the imagined earthy, expressive sexual liberation working-class men feel as they holler comments about teenaged-girls’ breasts from scaffolding.
In fact, Julie Burchill fell out with Toby Young allegedly because he abused his position in a ‘casting couch’ scenario.
Feminists had to work so hard to pull society back.

I think you are right these men are all thinking - ‘what the fuck was I thinking/doing back then?’. If RB’s chickens have come home to roost, what about everyone else?