An abuser hiding in plain sight - theatre director turned out to be a paedophile

[UtopiaPlanitia]

Excellent article by Jonny Best describing how a feted theatre director made use of Queer Theory to subvert safeguarding and to promote paedophilia in his work.

And because this man was viewed as positively subversive and anti-capitalist his work was acclaimed rather than condemned for crossing boundaries.

https://thecritic.co.uk/an-abuser-hiding-in-plain-sight/

Interesting. Do you recall where you read/heard that, please?

I advocate for sex disaggregation when reviewing clinical papers/science reporting so I'd like to read this to see if there are insights into the reported phenomenon.

I can only give you the vaguest of pointers, it was on Radio 4, maybe about a year ago. I think at that time she was having a major exhibition and she gave a handful of interviews.

It was Desert Island Discs, about a year ago, listen from about 18 minutes in. It's a short remark that you could easily miss.

Thank you!

It's here for anyone else who is interested both in her and the playlist:

www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001t2y4

Hmm, I'm not necessarily wholly convinced by this. It occurred to me that there was an element of egging on and I found this.

Rhythm 0

I'm afraid this is very much an "a man in a pub told me" anecdote, but a while ago I chatted with somebody who apparently interviewed people who attended the original Rhythm 0. She said that initially people were reluctant to behave in the violent ways expected, and Abromović's assistants were telling people they were spoiling the art by being too timid. None of the online write-ups mention this so idk, but it would make a lot of sense. The piece would've been a damp squib if (a few of) the audience hadn't behaved as they did.Either way, perhaps it makes sense to think of the audience reaction as artistic collaboration, rather than innate human visciousness.

Blimey. Really shocked to have read that. I was in a 6th form play with Chris Goode which we took to London to play at the newly opened Globe Theatre.

I had no idea he went on to be a writer, director or peodophile. Also didn't know that he'd died.

• "Do it to Julia"
• https://news.sky.com/story/wives-of-russian-troops-encourage-them-to-rape-ukrainian-women-ukraines-first-lady-says-12757474 and https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/russian-wife-who-urged-soldier-28802695
• "Cool girl"

@UtopiaPlanitia And because this man was viewed as positively subversive and anti-capitalist his work was acclaimed rather than condemned for crossing boundaries.

It's always the "progressive" men who turn out to be really weird and creepy.

Yup. It's a red flag for me now if a man declares himself to be feminist or leftist.

Right-wing men and left-wing men will argue all day about whether women are private property or public property. Where they are unanimous is in thinking that we are property.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate Where they are unanimous is in thinking that we are property.

I don't think women are property, because it's very clearly and demonstrably not true. How could I think women are property when I don't own one?

I am grimly amused at these statements that "only" left wing men are creepy. Some people need to spend a bit more time with right wing men, so they can get up to speed with just how little political affiliation has to do with creepiness.

This is very true. I think some women let their guard down with left-wing men, however, on the basis that they must be on the same side. If the past few years of gender madness have taught us anything, however, it is that left-wing men most definitely are not on the same side.

It's the abuse plus the hypocrisy. Surely you've noticed that most people really detest hypocrisy over important issues.

1. Not all men are like that, and at the same time enough men are like that to pose a structural danger to women as a class.
2. I don't own a helicopter, but I know that helicopters are property. A man not thinking of himself as an owner of a woman doesn't preclude him from thinking that women are or should be property, as demonstrated by the existence of incels.

This is exactly what I'm saying. I know that a Christian fundie bloke will think that I should be a surrendered wife andI will be wary of him accordingly. But it's tempting to believe and trust the man who makes the right noises about abortion rights and affordable healthcare.

Some of the men who raped Gisèle Pélicot said they thought it was okay because they had her husband's permission. If that's not evidence that some men see women as property I don't know what is.

Regarding Goode. He was monstrous but that doesn't mean everything he does has to be seen through that lens. Although I never saw the play about the relationship between the boy and the old man (perhaps if I had, I wouldn't naively be posting this), it's a fairly time worn trope. There's 'Goodnight Mr Tom', Treacle Walker, even Gandalf and the hobbits. It's possible he was dipping his toe in the water to explore his own proclivities though. I wouldn't want to see it now any more than I'd listen to Garry Glitter or Rolf Harris.

I read a post by a woman (not I think on MN) that said it was all right for Bill Wyman to have sex with a 13 year-old because her mother gave permission. Multiple vulnerabilities wrapped up in coded status.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate The thing is, rightwingers are getting smarter and not starting g with the surrendered wife bit. Instead, the take the start of GC thinking - sex matters, because it has a material impact on how we experience the world and are treated by society - and then from there they move to "women should be venerated for their roles as wives and mothers, not punished," and then to "men are from Mars and women are from Venus," and then "feminism has been wrong all along and it's feminism that's caused transactivism."

I have been watching this develop over the past few years all over "heterodox" publications and forums. Even MN is regularly invaded by people keen to tie all modern ills to liberalism, though they're usually not stupid enough to directly blame feminism on this precise board!

I think liberalism is too broad a concept, like open-mindedness.
We all have our boundaries, the line in the sand that exists for a reason. When that line conflicts with someone's desire to cross it the accusations of narrow-minded and illiberal are designed to shame you into erasing it. It comes from the same place as frigid, prude & right wing.

It's the literal equivalent of forced teaming.

@quantumbutterfly Liberalism isn't synonymous with "left wing," it refers to Enlightenment principles - separation of Church & State, universal human rights (including for those with protected characteristics), universal sufferage, rule of law. Around the turn of the millenium American religious conservatives started merging criticism of libertinism with criticisms of "liberals." This has lead to this odd situation in which supporting human rights is regarded as left-coded, which it shouldn't be.

You can regard supporting liberal ideals as forced teaming if you like, but it's playing into the warping of political dialogue that the US culture warriors kicked off quite a while ago. Personally I'm a stickler for keeping track of meanings.

It's difficult to be a stickler for meanings when they are made subjective rather than objective.
I certainly wouldn't team liberal values with what I perceive self identified left wingers drift or occasionally sleepwalk towards. Left wing and right wing have also become subjective definitions.

If you put the word liberal into google you would get such a variety of broad definitions it would be difficult to pin down. Most words need to be taken in context and the context I was referring to is it's weaponisation as a desirable quality to have when it's boundaries are so hard to define.

Its like Ley lines. You find the uncanny pattern of bad behavior where-ever you happen to be looking.
Which is why you will have right wing women talking about their disillusionment with the right, and the realities of the "tradwife" lifestyle (Laura Southern) and left wing women talking about their disillusionment with super progressive, "feminist" men who turn out to be abusive, or happy to take advantage, or just completely uninterested in abuse of women that doesn't line up with their world view.
It isn't all men, but it does cross political lines.
Also - there is "in group" v "outgroup" bias which everyone, male and female is susceptible. If a woman/child from the "ingroup" is assaulted by someone from an "outgroup" its a travesty. If its a woman from the "outgroup" assaulted by your "ingroup" it either didn't happen or isn't a big deal. That's a scenario that you can see play out in all sorts of situations and means that people like theatre directors etc benefit from the protection of their status as the centre of the in group.

Rouseau, was an absolute shit to women and his own children (both by the standards of the time and todays standards. He was just a shitty person and a hypocrite). So its a relationship that has always been there.

@biscuitandcake
My first thought was Rousseau the artist 😂
Just had a google about the philosopher, he sent all his children to the Paris foundling hospital at birth??? Holy cow.

Actions speak louder.

@quantumbutterfly Indeed, it's hard for us to insist on a definition of woman or push back against the singular "they" if self-declared "GCs" easily roll along with redefining "liberal" to mean whatever the latest salvo in the American culture war wants it to. I'm quite sensitive to seeing the Western political and historic tradition warped, but I realise lots of people are quite happy to defend some definitions, but screw around with others if they think they can get an advantage from it.