Graham Linehan makes women getting raped all about him.

[GiddyGiddyGiddy]

Can never keep up with the consensus on Linehan on here, but perhaps we should bear things like this in mind before parading him as any sort of empathetic thinker...

x.com/glinner/status/2056523314374570414#m

I think I'm another one reading it differently to you OP.

His got pulled because of "hurt feelings" but they let another show run for years despite women involved in it complaining of coercion and rape. He is calling out the double standards and that women's voices are never heard.

Exactly. Men's hurty feelings get a faster response out of Channel Four than the rape of multiple women does. That Glinner has chosen his own show to illustrate this is irrelevant to the truth he is stating.

It's the Bananarama tone-policing thing again, isn't it? "He can make that point, but only using wording that we approve of."

I think this is about it.

I have never thought of Glinner as being a feminist. But I am aware that he is not just someone who believes in biological reality, but has been prepared to put his personal reputation, his profession and his private life on the line by being very public and loud about it.

Which is probably braver than many of us have been or are.

So I never expect him to make statement that epitomise a feminst perspective.

And there may be other instances, but it is logical that he would reference something he know for a fact ie his own show being pulled for "wrong think" by one of its writers, whilst a programme that C4 have been made aware have led to sexual violence is still broadcast.

The contrast being made is perfect for highlighting that you don't have to go to the darkest reaches of the internet and plumb the abyss of the "manosphere" to find woke misogyny on steroids - it's all there in plain sight courtesy of a mainstream TV company.

Case 1:
TW presented in a comedy in saner times as something other than a fabulous creature to be revered. . . . Time passes . . . world goes mad . . . MEN COMPLAIN! Plus - double insult: TW was played by an actual woman!! 🤯
Immediate shock, horror!! Unacceptable!! Transphobia!!! (aka men who claim to be women have been - OMG! - mocked!!) Delete!! Delete!! Delete!!

😱

Case 2:
Men rape women during course of TV show designed to facilitate rape. Meh.

🤷‍♂️

Until, eventually, the story gets enough traction that the amoral TV Company deems it necessary to pull the show to avoid further bad publicity.

How much more stark can it get??

There wasn't any immediate SHOCK HORROR to Graham's IT Crowd episode; it aired in 2008, he didn't get any meaningful pushback for years, and C4 eventually removed it from streaming in 2020, 12 years after its initial broadcast.

C4 has removed all episodes of MAFS UK from its website

Whatever the rights or wrongs here (and C4 absolutely has a lot to answer for regarding MAFS UK), I'm not seeing much hypocrisy or any need for Graham to link his own petty grievances with C4 to something as serious as this.

Given he's made no other mention of the MAFS scandal, I think it's hard to regard his tweet as anything other than narcissistic self-centred behaviour.

Ymmv

Me too.

Meanwhile in this house, I had immediate Shock Horror about so many of C4's 'dating' or just 'excuse to show kids a random adult's gentials' shows and yet this is the first to be canned?

C4, where a man plays the piano with his penis on live TV for shits and giggles?

I find his activism all a bit uncomfortable, but he's not wrong on this one - is usually not wrong TBH.

And they've pulled the shows now, but they didn't do it when they were first aware of the compaint, or before they were aired.

I’m also a rape victim and I think he’s making a perfectly good point.

You’re not trying to tell people how to feel are you? 🤔

1. Having your lawful work censored to this extent retrospectively is not "petty".
2. The fact that TITC is Glinner's work doesn't in anyway undermine his point.

Given that Glinner liked a tweet saying women shouldn't have the vote it's hardly surprising he's not very arsed about rape. There was also the lovely tweet where he mocked a woman suffering from anorexia.

He may be right about men not being able to become women but he's still a colossal twat and no friend to feminism.

1. Whilst Glinner should take more care to understand the tweets he likes, a non-USian wouldn't necessarily realise what the 19th Amendment does. It's possible that he was liking the rest of the sentiments in that tweet.
2. "it's hardly surprising he's not very arsed about rape" is a very creative misinterpretation of what he said.

If I remember rightly he apologised for the comment about the woman with anorexia. He does tend to post without checking what he’s reacting to.

Exactly. Completely disingenuous spin as par for the course.

Ok so it's a spin to point out things he literally did?

It’s spin to present it as “he liked a tweet saying that women shouldn’t be able to vote”, when he actually liked a tweet by some “anti woke” bloke complaining about a number of things, one of which was the numbered amendment, with zero explanation of what it was. It’s dishonest of you, isn’t it?

On reflection yes a bit, I'll accept I took the least generous possible way to express it.

Sorry, he just gets right on my tits. I was absolutely horrified when he was arrested at the airport if that helps.

He gets on my tits too. That doesn't mean that I don't extend to him the benefit of doubt where that's appropriate.

I don't think he's doing that at all. He's using an example he's familiar with to show how low down the list of broadcasters' priorities women are - 'hurty' words have been judged more contenious than (allegedly) real physical harm. He's made it all about women.

Fair enough, appreciate your honesty there. He can be a massive dick sometimes, agreed.

It's highlighted that they took action to pull one episode for causing offence, but not only waited to pull a series predicated upon deliberately placing female participants at risk of sexual assault, they paid for it and refused to do so even when participants had disclosed that they had been assaulted by males - not doing so until a competitor produced a documentary/exposé of the situation.

There wasn't any immediate SHOCK HORROR to Graham's IT Crowd episode; it aired in 2008, he didn't get any meaningful pushback for years,

I covered that:

TW presented in a comedy in saner times as something other than a fabulous creature to be revered. . . . Time passes . . . world goes mad . . . MEN COMPLAIN!

The "immediate SHOCK HORROR" was in response to the delayed allegations of "transphobia".

They were, let's be honest, less about the content of an episode of a long gone, if much admired, Sit Com and more about wielding the Cancellation Stick with which to beat Linehan bloody and senseless, metaphorically speaking. Why? Because he supports women's rights and advocates for protection of children.

He is no saint - who is? However, to accuse him of "self-centred narcissism" seems like yet another deliberate bad-faith reading of his actions.

He has the perfect vantage point to observe and then highlight this particular example of the hypocrisy of Channel 5. So he did.

It says a lot that some people are more exercised about Glinner's motivation in putting a spotlight on Channel 5's hypocrisy than they are about the moral deficit that he identifies in C5's continuing to run MAFS despite allegations that it has enabled rape.

That only happened after the public complaints.

The point is at the time they knew of women reporting rape and other sexual harrassment, they went ahead with the broadcast of the programme at the time.

I cant understand why all this effort is going into making C4 somehow being misrepresented.

They did nothing at the time.

They only talked about pulling the 2 episodes linked to the accusastions and then much, much later pulled all episodes.

WTF is going on that on a feminist forum posters are putting so much into pillorising one man rather than the real issue that is C4.

What pathetic manipulation of the facts to try and justify what in itself is a derail of the issue, women being abused, to go on and on about one man.

Why are you so obsessed.

This!
OP may not agree with how he does things but he has not done anything illegal or wrong so he is totally entitled to voice his opinion and his perspective. A body of work was cancelled because of his (legitimate) views which were deemed offensive whilst actually concerning behaviour was ignored. He has a valid and important point and I for one am glad he highlighted it!

edited to make clear who I am responding to