Dee Laundry

I knew he wouldn't get it. First he sets off the Catherine Wheel, then wonders why it's so sparkly and loud, then has a hissy fit and huffs off Twitter.

Hundreds of celebrities have done stuff like this. Get over yourself, Stephen.

From:

Did you even read the article? He never gave an interview.

He agreed to a photograph, which was taken, and then had what he thought was a casual chat off the record about gay male sexuality. Not female sexuality. His words were taken, twisted, misrepresented, and published without his permission.

I respectfully suggest that you get over YOURself, cuddyclothes. It's Not About You.

From:

blackmare.livejournal.com

I am willing to accept that he has been remarkably foolish and opaque on this issue rather than willfully misogynistic, but I think it might be time he bucked up and read just a few of the things people were saying.

For myself, I am considering whether to register at his site simply so I can reply, and politely point out that all those people on Twitter who agreed with him are precisely the reason why so many of us were so hurt and so angry about what he said. Because, whether he meant to or not, he was feeding a deep and very real bitterness and anger and even hatred toward women, and that this is not funny for those of us who have to live with it.

From:

What I read from Stephen's blog post was "I did however agree to do one profile for a small gay glossy called Attitude." That seems to indicate he did know his remarks to "the profiler," as Stephen calls him, were part of the event.

I agree that some people have misinterpreted some of what he said. But there also exists some legitimate criticism of his direct quotations. And this is not the first time he's said the same thing. Here's a 12/3/08 YouTube post with video of him saying it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A211L382EVI&feature=player_embedded

As I said above, this one opinion/idea of Stephen's shouldn't be blown out of proportion, and I don't intend to do so. However, given that Cuddyclothes, you, and I are all women, I do think it is about us.

Edited Date: 2010-11-04 11:12 pm (UTC)

From:

I definitely do not think he meant to denigrate women. Yet his words did -- by, just as you said, feeding into an entrenched belief that is harmful to women.

From:

I think it's ludicrous to say that one person's being treated terribly by the press is "about us". It's not. It's about irresponsible journalism.

In the video, he wasn't saying at all the same thing he was accused of saying in the magazine piece. He was talking in general terms about differences in behaviors, which demonstrably do exist. Men can hang around in public parks looking for sex; it's not safe for women to do that in our society. So what he was saying was accurate. Nowhere did he say "women don't like sex" in that video and I think it's foolish to believe that he thinks that. Not only that, but you're failing to give the context of the video.

I certainly don't think he deserves to be called the imbecilic names cuddyclothes used. I find her attitude offensive.

From:

I understand your upset. Did Cuddyclothes call him names on a different forum? Because I don't see names in her comment.

"Women for some reason like to claim that they're as intersted in sex as men, but it's manifest nonsense. I mean, when do women hang around in parks looking for casual encounters with men? They just don't." He doesn't talk about safety at all. He talks about desire, saying that prostitutes "have to be paid. That proves the very point."

The way that that statement buttresses misogyny is about us. What I am talking about is not about Stephen Fry. As said above, he'll go on about his life, and I'll go on about mine. But there is a very real, very pervasive attitude that Straight men are unhappy because women want relationships instead of unfettered sex... and therefore women are the cause of (straight) men's discontent, and therefore women need to change so (straight) men can be happy.

That is not what Stephen said, not by any means. But his actual words give a kind of support to that idea. I don't think he meant to give support to that idea. However, his words did. And so, in that sense, it is about me.

From:

"Hissy fit" and "huffy" were the insults I was referring to. Her entire post was rude. Would you have liked such a post to be directed at you? Do you honestly think she was attempting to be civil? Because if she was, she failed miserably, in my book.

Again, you're leaving out the context of the video clip. He never said in that clip that straight men were unhappy. You're still putting words in his mouth from the faux-interview.

It's sad to me that people can't admit that they were wrong when the target of their ire is taken away. Stephen Fry is not a misogynist now, but still "his actual words give a kind of support to that idea"? Come on.

I am upset about this, yes. My sister works in the media and misrepresentation is a very big problem. She's stopped working in places where she was extremely well-compensated because the practices were so unethical, and too many people in the media want an attention-grabbing story at the expense of the truth. To see people being dismissive and saying that misquotes don't happen bothers me because it's naive and false.

From:

I never suggested that it was about me, LID. Or "us." And yes, I read the article. I respectfully disagree.

Edited Date: 2010-11-05 12:08 am (UTC)

From:

I am sorry that what Stephen said was so upsetting to you. It doesn't sound like he meant it to be that way, but it obviously touched a nerve. Misogyny is a real problem in the world, and perhaps it it is something that Stephen doesn't have much to do with. I imagine that, for example, he takes gay issues much more seriously.

Believe it or not, many ancient writers state that women enjoy sex TOO MUCH and therefore can't be trusted and should be kept under careful supervision! (And definitely should NOT wear makeup).

From:

Stephen Fry is not a misogynist now, but still "his actual words give a kind of support to that idea"? Come on.

Yes, it's true, because that opinion is pervasive in our society. I can't tell you how many men I know who would more or less agree with Fry's opinions as expressed, including my husband, unfortunately. :-\ (I'm working with him on it. It's slow going at times.)

Voicing that opinion legitimizes it. Given that Stephen Fry is known and respected for his wit and humor, well, it unfortunately lends even more weight to it. Even if I give Fry the benefit of the doubt and accept he meant it in jest, it still perpetuates stereotypes. It's still harmful. It's still sexism. Fry doesn't seem to be able to understand that point. That has nothing to do with misquoting.

From:

So... Stephen Fry gets a pass to make misogynist and sexist remarks because he's gay?

It doesn't sound like he meant it to be that way, but it obviously touched a nerve.

It doesn't matter how he meant his remarks. The point is, he made them, and therefore he contributed to legitimizing a very real and common opinion about how women feel about sex. He doesn't seem to get that point.

From:

Completely agree. Our society is frightened by aggressive sexuality in women, unless she's, say, a beautiful assassin. It's often portrayed as either gross or devouring, rather than a natural urge that many women have.

From:

I am very sorry that this is upsetting you. I do not mean to say and in fact did not say that "misquotes don't happen." They certainly do. I don't think SF was misquoted in this case. He said he was misquoted -- but then he says in his blog post that he doesn't remember exactly what he said when talking with the profiler from Attitude, and that he has not read the article from Attitude magazine.

It's sad to me that people can't admit that they were wrong when the target of their ire is taken away. Stephen Fry is not a misogynist now, but still "his actual words give a kind of support to that idea"? Come on.

I don't think I was wrong in my interpretation of the actual words that were given as quotation, so I can't admit to being wrong.

I think you and I are looking at two different parts of this "elephant" (to use a metaphor) so maybe it's best if we stop discussing it with each other.

Edited Date: 2010-11-05 02:06 am (UTC)

From:

What was said did touch a nerve, but I will keep going on.

From:

spoggly.livejournal.com

Much as you may wish to think me a compound of the most misogynistic, ignorant, sexist and antediluvian pig who ever trod the planet I can truly report that I know and love enough women to be quite assured of the fact the women do indeed enjoy sex. I would have to ignore evolution, precedent, personal experience and the empirical observation of vibrator sales and teenage pregnancies and all kinds of obvious and unavoidable facts in between to believe anything else. And yet the public perception appears to be that I have made a statement that proves I think otherwise. Any number of self-righteous, indignant and contemptuous figures have (if I have understood aright) come out to condemn me for opinions that I have never even held.

how classic

From:

No, he doesn't get to make such remarks because he's gay. What I meant was that he doesn't seem to take a serious issue (misogyny) very seriously, perhaps because he hasn't given it much thought, and possibly he has causes that he would not want others to be flippant about in return.

I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because that's my default setting, but maybe I am wrong to do so, if he's been making misogynistic comments elsewhere, unapologetically. In which case *I* apologize.

And how people "mean" remarks does matter sometimes. For example, I'm vegan for ethical reasons, but I recognize that other people have different causes dear to their hearts which may not be the same as mine and they may express themselves without thinking of my causes.

From:

he doesn't seem to take a serious issue (misogyny) very seriously, perhaps because he hasn't given it much thought

Clearly he hadn't given any thought to it. He admitted he never bothered to read the published interview to see what actually was printed. He admitted that he never read any of what commenters and critics were actually saying in reply. So when he got called on his remarks, instead of going back and reading for himself what was actually said on both sides, instead of weighing whether or not the criticism had a valid point, which it did in spades... he flounced off Twitter and claimed he was misquoted.

What makes it worse, IMO, is that his response is not to what the critics actually said, it's to what he thinks they said:

I say “if I have understood aright” because I have not read a single newspaper article on this whole issue and I may well have got hold of the wrong end of the whole silly stick. I am going by the maddeningly well-meaning but wholly unwanted information given to me by others.

IOW, he's not owning up to his words. He's replying to a straw man. Somehow I don't find that respectful.

and possibly he has causes that he would not want others to be flippant about in return

I fail to see what this has to do at all with him making sexist and misogynist remarks. In his response he says he was only trying to comment on gay male sexuality. Which is fair, that was the topic of the interview. Except, where do women's motivations to have sex fit into a discussion of gay male sexuality? How is he even qualified to comment on female sexuality? That's where he fell flat. The wise course of action was not to discuss women at all in that context. What he did was spout an opinion about women and sex that is a) sadly all too common among men and b) sexist. From the Pink News web article (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2010/10/25/stephen-fry-feels-sorry-for-straight-men/):

“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.

He then goes on to ask why, if women supposedly love sex, they don't approach it the way gay men do. Which... is sexist because it implies that the way (he assumes) women approach sex is inferior. And he has made other misogynistic comments in the same vein before.

And how people "mean" remarks does matter sometimes. For example, I'm vegan for ethical reasons, but I recognize that other people have different causes dear to their hearts which may not be the same as mine and they may express themselves without thinking of my causes.

I would hope that if, while championing my cause I said something hurtful in the context of your cause, you'd let me know. Then we could have a meaningful discussion and hopefully come to a workable resolution. Fry isn't even allowing that. By engaging with a straw man he's shutting down discussion.

(Sorry, tl;dr. I apologize for any incoherence; it's late and I really need to toddle off to bed.)

From:

spoggly.livejournal.com

it is classic "how could i be sexist, my mom/sister/etc is a woman" bullshit, and the whole thing is, like you said, more whining than actual explanation or apology. those horrible, awful people out on the internet were offended by something, how dare they.

From:

I have friends with different opinions on the whole thing, and that's fine. *HUGS* You're awesome, Dee. And this is precisely WHY I am glad to have you as a friend.

From:

This.

From:

I'm sorry that your husband is sexist. That must be difficult to live with. But Stephen Fry didn't make him that way, and scapegoating him does not help you.

The point that you seem not to be getting is that he didn't voice that opinion. The things people were upset about were the headline screaming "STEPHEN FRY FEELS SORRY FOR STRAIGHT MEN" and the article falsely claming that he said women didn't like sex. In his blog piece, he's stated that he neither stated nor belives either of those things.

He didn't mean it in jest, he flat out didn't say it. The people you should be angry at are the people who printed such nonsense, not the man in whose mouth words were put that he finds offensive himself. They are the ones perpetuating stereotypes.

And to those saying "he didn't even read the article" - he's stated that he was sent quotes of the entire thing. He didn't read it when it first came out because he had no idea they were going to publish such a thing, but he's seen it since.

I think he's explained the situation very well on his blog. If people still have problems with him, that speaks more to their own issues than to his.

From:

Not remembering exactly what was said in a casual conversation and being certain that you never said "I feel sorry for straight men" and "women don't like sex" because you don't think those things and would never say them are not mutually exclusive.

Fine; that's the last I'll say on the subject.

From:

Why, thank you! You surprise me.

From:

I did read your whole comment; no teal deer :-)

My view is that he misspoke about something of which he had no experience (how women feel about sex) in a flippant way. And he apologized for it, because others pointed out to him that he should not be flippant about such things. By apologizing it seems to me that he is owning up to what he said:

Let me now come out and say before we go any further that I entertain no such notion.

On one hand, he is allowed to explain himself. On the other hand, it can look like he is trying to make excuses. I personally believe everyone is allowed to screw up now and then; however, a repeated pattern of offensive statements is not good at all. If Stephen continues in this vein of making assumptions about women, I will lose my respect for him.

What makes me uncomfortable with fandom these days is people who are accused of "fail!" when they make a remark out of ignorance. Often the ignorance is genuine and not malicious, but others are quite right to point out the error; and the original commenter is often apologetic and explains that he/she meant no harm and modifies his/her statement to be more thoughtful. But sometimes others in fandom will not let it go at that.

In my view, Stephen Fry made a remark he should not have out of ignorance, but the press magnified the importance of the remark which, in one sense was a good thing, because it brought attention to the cause of women; but in another sense, it painted him as a misogynist is a way that was possibly not accurate. Without reading everything Stephen has ever said on that issue, I cannot tell if he is or not.

Dee herself has at least twice on this LJ been (so it seems to me) been taken to task for opinions which some have viewed as harmless and others as harmful. Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion. What I sometimes see in fandom (and life in general) is people upset because others don't share their opinion, even after meaningful discussion (which as you say is an important part of the process). Sometimes there is no solution other than to agree to disagree. But the discussion hopefully leaves an impression on all parties.

From:

No, I don't, because the "This" was meant for the comment of

inlaterdays and certainly not for yours. I agree with her, and absolutely NOT with you.

Edited Date: 2010-11-05 03:12 pm (UTC)

From:

Let's try this again, and it's meant for

inlaterdays an certainly NOT for

cuddyclothes: YES THIS.

Edited Date: 2010-11-05 03:12 pm (UTC)

From:

I don't have a problem with that.

From:

bammel.livejournal.com

Stephen Fry said something stupid and wrong. He doesn't get why that thing is stupid and wrong. The world is not over.

ahah this is an excellent summary

mr. fry, i'm wagging my finger so hard right now

From:

My view is that he misspoke about something of which he had no experience (how women feel about sex) in a flippant way. And he apologized for it, because others pointed out to him that he should not be flippant about such things. By apologizing it seems to me that he is owning up to what he said:

Let me now come out and say before we go any further that I entertain no such notion.

I read through his response. Notice I'm not calling it an "apology" because he does *not* apologize at all. This is an apology he could have made:

"I made some comments about female sexuality which some people found hurtful, harmful and sexist. I did not mean them to be; however it appears that I spoke out of my own lack of understanding on the subject. I sincerely apologize. Alas I cannot promise I won't do it again, but I will try in future to think about what my words will actually mean before I say them."

Show me where the underlined sentence appears in his response, and then I'll believe it's a real apology.

Look, I know some people take these things too far, but he's not owning up to what he said. He's excusing it, shifting the blame onto those who were hurt by it, and claiming victim status. His entire response is a declaration of male privilege. The cherry on the cake is that Fry's stated a willful intent not to monitor what he says. For someone as erudite as he is, that's rather ironic. I really don't know how his fans can defend that.

From:

Stephen Fry did not make my husband espouse sexist views. My husband couldn't care less who Stephen Fry is, TBH. Our current society, which embraces male privilege, is what's responsible for these sexist views. Fry is a part of our society.

The point that you seem not to be getting is that he didn't voice that opinion.

Here's the contentious quote:

“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.

“Of course a lot of women will deny this and say, ‘Oh, no, but I love sex, I love it!’ But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?

“Gay men are the perfect acid test. If they want to get their rocks off, they go into a park where they know they can do it.”

These comments perpetuate stereotypes of female sexuality. (Ironically they perpetuate stereotypes of male sexuality too.) IMHO they imply that female sexuality is inferior to male sexuality. That's why many people were upset and taking him to task. Not for the "women hate sex!" thing. That's a convenient misdirection for the real problem, which is his sexist remarks.

He didn't read [the article] when it first came out

That's no excuse, especially for one who is so media-savvy.

I think he's explained the situation very well on his blog.

Yes, he certainly painted himself very well as the victim, which really, he isn't, not in this case.

From:

Again, you missed the part where he didn't say that.

Quite honestly, staying married to a male sexist (don't blame society; he chooses to have those views and you choose to enable him) does more damage to society and more to perpetuate stereotypes of female sexuality than being the target of a media frenzy. It's impossible to take you seriously when your behavior is so contradictory and hypocritical. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's how I feel. I've left relationships where I wasn't being treated fairly. Staying with someone who views you as less of a person than himself sends the message to him and to other women that it's all right to think that way.

That's no excuse, especially for one who is so media-savvy.

...okay, is it your lack of reading comprehension that is the problem here? He had no reason to read the interview because he didn't give one. The magazine made it up.

Edited Date: 2010-11-05 04:40 pm (UTC)

From:

I don't care.

From:

Quite honestly, staying married to a male sexist (don't blame society; he chooses to have those views and you choose to enable him) does more damage to society and more to perpetuate stereotypes of female sexuality than being the target of a media frenzy.

Excuse me? Clearly you didn't read my earlier comments to you above where I said, Yes, it's true, because that opinion is pervasive in our society. I can't tell you how many men I know who would more or less agree with Fry's opinions as expressed, including my husband, unfortunately. :-\ (I'm working with him on it. It's slow going at times.) (Emphasis mine.)

Where on earth do you get that I feel "less of a person"? If I did, would I be working with my husband to change his views? How is working with him to change his views choosing to enable him? And if he thought I was less of a person, why would he be working with me to understand where his views are harmful? It's impossible to take you seriously when it's obvious you're doing the same thing you accuse me of doing--i.e. you chose to read only what you agree with, ignored the rest, and drew inaccurate conclusions. If there is someone being contradictory and hypocritical here, it's not me.

This is what he said on his blog re the magazine article:

Anyway, I did a photo-shoot for the magazine, during which and after which I conversed with a profiler. I can’t remember his name and I haven’t actually read the article he wrote as a result. They sent me three copies of the magazine and I looked at the photo on the front cover and now the magazines lie piled up somewhere. (emphasis mine)

"Conversed with a profiler" means he gave an interview. Now who's demonstrating a lack of reading comprehension here?

From:

Lid, I think this exchange of comments is heading into personal territory, so I am asking you and Topaz both to stop. I'm going to freeze this thread.

From:

Topaz, I think this exchange of comments is heading into personal territory, so I am asking you and Lid both to stop. I'm going to freeze this thread.

From:

Thinking about this last night, it occurred to me that was really bothering me deep down was the issue of speaking in public. As someone whose job involves speaking in public, I am constantly trying to weigh my words and ideas carefully. Sometimes one makes teasing comments to lighten the mood, but one must not be flippant about many topics, such as religion, sexuality, or gender roles.

It disappoints me that a person whose intelligence I admire, such as Stephen Fry, would make a misstep in public, but it happens. He acknowledged the issue and explained the context for his remark. It may not have been the explicit apology you cite above, but I was relieved a bit to hear his version of events because he is usually so eloquent and amusing. If he makes any more potentially hurtful remarks, then I won't be a fan any longer.

Speaking of male privilege, I refuse to sing Canada's national anthem because of the misogynistic line "true patriot love / in all our sons command." I don't know how such a un-PC line can continue to be sanctioned by the government.

From:

As someone whose job involves speaking in public, I am constantly trying to weigh my words and ideas carefully.

YES. This is what wise and thoughtful people try to do. But Fry seems to think otherwise :-( I mean, he states outright in his response:

And what do I learn from it? Hm. That’s harder.

1. Never ever read any tweets or direct messages sent to you the moment you get wind of a media shit storm brewing
2. No more print interviews, Stephen. No matter how small and worthy the publication you can’t be trusted not to say something that will make you look a tit when reproduced elsewhere.
3. Pretend you’re a politician and only say things after weighing all the consequences and potential offence caused.

Let’s be honest, I’ll never stick to point 3. I’m probably doomed to lurch from embarrassing moment to embarrassing moment for the rest of my life.

*sigh* I'm going to stop now before I completely wear out my welcome on Dee's journal.

I refuse to sing Canada's national anthem because of the misogynistic line "true patriot love / in all our sons command." I don't know how such a un-PC line can continue to be sanctioned by the government.

Absolutely. What's worse was that 3/4 of Canadians polled, rejected the proposed inclusive version "in all of us command." >_< How ironic, since the original line from 1908 was "true patriot love/thou dost in us command." Time to press the government to change the lyrics again.

From:

nuclearfootball.livejournal.com

i actually went to your other post and read what he said and honestly i don't see the big deal... sounds like a lot of goofing on stereotypes to me. some dude just jawjacking.

but of course one would expect that from me.

also jeezum crow at the amount of words in these comments. though i skimmed them and lid makes the most sense and that's not just because she's the only other person on this page besides you and hib i like

i'm debating posting this comment because i'm sure it sounds like i'm just being contrary or confrontational and i'm not. but dammit everyone else is saying their opinions so Why Can't I? *patriotic music plays, eagle soars overhead*

From:

nuclearfootball.livejournal.com

what do you have against beautiful assassin chicks

From:

Your comment is fine. Lid's comments made some sense until she started personally attacking people who are directly conversing with her. Then we had *a parting of the ways*

From:

dangomango.livejournal.com

Jfc, just because you like a certain celebrity does NOT make that celebrity a good human being.

From:

dangomango.livejournal.com

I do also want to mention that in his book about the USA, he went through my part of the country and, without actually bothering to get to know the people living there, dismissed us all as ignorant rednecks who probably didn't have a single school in the whole state. Charming.

From:

Before I got into the H/W community, I'd barely heard of Stephen Fry. I knew he was a writer, commentator and English, but that was about it. Since then I've seen his work and liked it (enough to post his lacerating comments about media coverage of Peter Cook's death on my LJ).

To me he's just one more celebrity. A smart, witty, entertaining celebrity. And when people in the public eye say the sort of things he said, and get flack for it, I would hope he would man up, apologize and move on. Saying he didn't know he was being interviewed and then claiming to have never read the article is disengenuous, to say the least.

From:

sodiumbisulfite.livejournal.com

Thank You!!!! This is something that baffles me constantly with disagreements like this. No one knows this person beyond the persona they try to portray for themselves through the media. He could be a saint, or he could be a real fucking prick, who's to say? Its not worth the hurt feelings. ;D

From: