JKR - Private Eye podcast

[Brewdug]

Ian Hislop and Helen Lewis go head-to-head about Scottish hate crime law. An interesting listen. Helen gets it, but Ian and the other male host are appalled at JKR's 'misgendering' and defensive of Monroe Bergdorf in particular.

To me it seemed clear Bergdorf made the list for something specifically said, a deft example of exposing the ideology rather than Bergdorf's very existence, which is what they seem to think was being called into question.

Private Eye has its moments and obviously some very good GC cartoons but this explains why they have never really got stuck in. Still a blind spot for some.

podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/page-94-the-private-eye-podcast/id973958702?i=1000651416301

Interesting to hear your take. I thought Helen could have given a lot more context about JKR's position and reasons for including MB and IW in the list, which was Ian's main reason for dismissing it. While she said she overall agreed with JKR I felt she was very watery and limp.

I know HL can be decisive on here and possibly could have been more robust, but she did give the issue some time and clarity even as the others tried to fob it off. I was mainly surprised at Ian Hislop spectacularly missing the point. And the other host calling back to it at the end saying JKR could "bore everyone with her pet interests". They really didn't want to know.

JKR clearly said that on X that Bergdorf was removed from a children's charity over safeguarding concerns and was unwoman champion despite having no idea what a women is. But none of the presenters seemed to remember that after reading her tweet, the two men thought it was because Bergdorf was a presenter?

I think helen didnt clarify because she was highlighting the fact that we need to be able to call a man a man, regarding of what hes doing. The two male presenters seem to think that thats only right if they are rapists.

I dont think they even acknowledged helens view, let alone understood.

I agree, Ian and the guy who isn't Andy really weren't interested which really disappointed me. I like Helen too. Maybe that's why I felt a bit let down. And to be honest, I was actually surprised she said she agreed with JKR towards the end of the piece after setting out such a context against her.

I was mainly surprised at Ian Hislop spectacularly missing the point. And the other host calling back to it at the end saying JKR could "bore everyone with her pet interests". They really didn't want to know.

It was a good example of men thinking the subject is beneath them. There are so many presenters going from pretending its not happening, to thinking its a fuss over a few, to making out whole thing not worth thinking about.

I will prefix this by saying I haven’t listened, but I strongly suspect that Ian Hislop might be exactly the kind of man who would listen to Debbie Hayton where he wouldn’t listen to a woman, however rational. He’s always struck me as very much a man’s man.

I’ve not listened either but I think for a lot of men MB is pretty, doesn’t look like a man (to them) so MB is therefore a woman (also maybe admitting to finding MB attractive if they are straight causes too much cognitive dissonance).

Agree with this too. All the defensive men have brought up Bergdorf, rather than any of the others, none of whom would strike me as at all physically attractive.

I haven't listened either (sorry) but I wonder if IH is pretending the whole GC situation is trivial to cover his back. The fact that Private Eye and Have I Got News For You never attempt to discuss the idiocy of men pretending to be women and infiltrating women's spaces is due, I would say, to cowardice and the fact that so much of the media and the press are captured or pretending to be captured by the trans ideology. A few cartoons in Private Eye aren't enough. The media seem to be completely out of touch with what the general public think.
How can anyone with a moral compass defend Bergdorf, but be happy to make the same old tired jokes about politicians on HIGNFY
I suspect that Ian knows perfectly well that JKR is correct but he's being disingenuous about it all because he knows that someone in his position as a political and social satirist should have spoken out years ago.

That is exactly the point. Bergdof is pretty and seems to 'pass' and many men cannot see past that. That GB news wally who was called out by JKR on X is a prime example of that. There is a lot of sexist thinking that underpins such perspectives.

Exactly. MB only got away with doing 2 unacceptable things (taking a female specific role AND breaking an important safeguarding practice) because they are trans. If they were IDing as a man, even a pretty one, people would have objected. If they were a less "passing" and attractive transwoman, people would have objected.

We can't say safeguarding doesn't matter because someone looks pretty.

This is disappointing. I had always assumed that HIGNFY's dodging of the issue was a higher up decision and that Hislop actually got it - based on the fact that he is supposed to have a brain in his head, is generally a supporter of free speech, and a couple of references in Private Eye.

This is disappointing. I had always assumed that HIGNFY's dodging of the issue was a higher up decision and that Hislop actually got it - based on the fact that he is supposed to have a brain in his head, is generally a supporter of free speech, and a couple of references in Private Eye.

Always worth of mention to see some of the reasons why MN finds Bergdorf objectionable:

https://twitter.com/HollyJohnsonfan/status/1006897754025545729/photo/1

Has Francis Wheen retired from Private Eye, then? He was definitely taking an interest in this.

28 Oct 2022 — After 36 years of writing jokes and skewering the dodgy, Francis Wheen is retiring as deputy editor of Private Eye.

He’s a misogynist. He’s got a track record of making demeaning and contemptuous remarks to female guests on HIGNFY.

No surprise that he prioritises a Woman With A Y Chromosome, and is too lazy to listen to women or consider their viewpoint.

'Pet interests' - do they mean women's rights? Or freedom of speech? I understand PE don't care much about the former, but you'd think the latter would be of interest.

Victoria Smith’s article is (as ever) worth a read.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5038104-article-the-sadness-of-sceptical-man-by-victoria-smith?reply=134109251

Look at the way Ian Hislop treated Paula Yates, plus his face when Jo Brand called him out that time for belittling sexual harassment in the workplace.
He’s no friend to women.

I'll never forget the sneering way Ian said 'mumsnet' when the first politicians came on here for webchats (David Cameron I think?). Disappointing.

Yes, it brings to mind the episode of HIGNFY when Jo Brand spoke up for women after he was dismissive about 'low level' harassment. I think he generally does good stuff but on this he's very disappointing. It seems to be a blind spot for him.

Just a reminder of Jo brand on HIGNFY

hislop knows full well men aren’t women but because it’s something that is primarily disadvantaging women he thinks it must be by definition trivial and not worthy of his manly intellect because after all it’s only women isn’t it

https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/in-the-news/paula-yates-documentary-ian-hislop-have-i-got-news-for-you/

Ian Hislop also sneered at Charlotte Church when she was in her teens and was the guest chair. She said she’d like to go to university and he replied “Don’t you need A levels for that? Hur hur hur hur hur.” Smug snob that he is.