X Close

What Mary Whitehouse got right Ridiculed for being on the wrong side of history, her time is now

Mary Whitehouse in Australia. Credit: Grahame Roderick Roberts/Fairfax Media via Getty Images

Mary Whitehouse in Australia. Credit: Grahame Roderick Roberts/Fairfax Media via Getty Images


October 19, 2020   5 mins

The critic Raymond Williams reminds us in Marxism and Literature that societies are always in a state of flux. At any one time, there will be dominant, residual, and emergent cultural elements existing simultaneously and in tension with one another. We tend to celebrate those historical figures who were part of emergent strains that later became dominant: the people credited with being ahead of their time and later vindicated, sometimes only (and most romantically) in death.

But we usually pay less attention to the people who found themselves part of residual elements that may once have been dominant, but eventually faded away. We venerate the people whose ideologies won out, perhaps imagining ourselves to be among their number. We think a lot less about the people who lost.

The infamous campaigner Mary Whitehouse is one of history’s losers. Born in 1910, she never let go of her Edwardian sensibilities, even as the society she knew collapsed around her ears. She spent 37 years organising letter-writing campaigns in an effort to halt the arrival of what she called the ‘permissive society’, horrified as she was by the displays of sex and violence that suddenly appeared on British television screens from the 1960s onwards. A contemporary of Whitehouse’s described her in The Financial Times as a “little Canute, exhorting the waves of moral turpitude to retreat”. She didn’t campaign for change, she campaigned for stasis. And she failed utterly, in a grand display of public humiliation.

Some of Whitehouse’s concerns look rather silly now. She and her fellow campaigners expended a huge amount of energy on the kind of sauciness that nowadays seems quaint. The double entendres in songs like Chuck Berry’s My Ding-A-Ling and sitcoms like It Ain’t Half Hot Mum all provoked letters, as did a suggestively placed microphone during Mick Jagger’s appearance on Top of the Pops. 

One of Whitehouse’s first forays into public life was an anonymous 1953 piece for The Sunday Times that advised mothers on how best to inhibit homosexuality in their sons. This open homophobia was combined with a crusade against blasphemy that often called upon archaic legislation. In 1977, she pursued a private prosecution against Gay News for printing a poem that described a Roman centurion fantasising about having sex with the body of the crucified Christ. The editor was convicted of blasphemous libel and the QC who represented him later wrote that Whitehouse’s “fear of homosexuals was visceral” — he may well have been right.

Her reputation as a bigoted fuddy-duddy means that if Whitehouse is remembered now, it is usually as a punchline. And indeed in her own lifetime she was the subject of constant ridicule. One of her books was ritually burned on a BBC sitcom, her name was used in jest as the title of the hit comedy show The Mary Whitehouse Experience, and a porn star mockingly changed her name to ‘Mary Whitehouse’ by deed poll (this second Mary Whitehouse later committed suicide).

Sir Hugh Greene, Director General of the BBC between 1960 and 1969, openly despised Whitehouse, so much so that he purchased a grotesque naked portrait of her to hang in his office. The story goes that Greene would vent his frustration by throwing darts at the portrait, squealing with delight if he managed to hit one of Whitehouse’s six breasts.

Greene was born in the same year as Whitehouse, but while this public school and Oxford educated man pronounced the word ‘class’ with a long ‘a’, the Warwickshire-born Whitehouse always pronounced it with a short one. The war that Whitehouse waged was, looked at from one perspective, a class war. She represented a majority whose world was being transformed by a cultural elite out of step with popular opinion and, then as now, it was provincial people without degrees who stood in opposition to the establishment of the day. If Whitehouse had been alive in 2016, she would surely have voted Leave.

The working class academic Richard Hoggart once shared a stage with Whitehouse, and wrote later of how “[t]he noise of the enthusiastic crowd of followers was, literally, a sort of music to her ears.” When he attempted to defend a provocative play by Dennis Potter, Whitehouse was outraged:

She pointed at me and invited [the crowd] to share her shock that anyone, least of all a “university man” could be so foolishly “clever-clever”. They agreed.

And yet, unlike most of his academic peers, the “clever-clever” Hoggart understood Whitehouse’s appeal and acknowledged the legitimacy of many of her complaints. And, in retrospect, it is indeed clear that while Whitehouse got a lot wrong, she also got a lot right.

For instance, at a time when the Paedophile Information Exchange was being welcomed warmly within some establishment circles, Whitehouse was one of the few public figures who gave a damn about child sexual abuse, lobbying hard for the private member’s bill that became the Protection of Children Act 1978. Anxiety about paedophilia was deeply unfashionable in the 1970s, but Mary Whitehouse was not in the business of following fashion.

In this instance, she was quite right, since we now know that at the same time BBC executives were rolling their eyes at the irritating behaviour of Whitehouse and her gang, the institution was enabling the abuses perpetrated by men like Jimmy Savile.

Looking back at the Leeds and Broadmoor hospital report on the crimes that Savile committed there in the 1970s, his deceptive technique becomes clear. The male doctors were charmed, as were the male porters. Young women were either too frightened or too starstruck to say a word. When anyone stood up to Savile, it was older women: nurses, matrons, grandmothers — the sort of obstinate ladies who flocked to Whitehouse’s campaigns. Misogynists have always reserved a particular well of hatred for women like this — creatures with heavy ankles and sagging necklines who have nothing to offer in terms of nubile beauty, but an annoying habit of saying ‘no’ to male demands. Sir Hugh Greene did not throw darts at naked portraits of any of his male critics.

Whitehouse ultimately made a terrible mistake in allying herself with Margaret Thatcher, falsely assuming that here was a woman — a lower-middle-class mother, just like Whitehouse — who would recognise the nobility of her project. But of course, the age of the free market that Thatcher ushered in has led to a proliferation of sexualised entertainment, far beyond anything witnessed in the 1960s and 1970s.

With no figure like Mary Whitehouse to block them, advertisers and filmmakers have produced increasingly shocking and titillating content, doing their very best to capture our attention and using every tool available, no matter how profane. Just imagine Whitehouse’s face if she could watch Cuties, or WAP, or a new adaptation of The Lord of the Rings which will apparently include graphic sex scenes. The devoted Catholic J. R. R. Tolkien would have been appalled at such an idea, and even just 20 years ago, Peter Jackson added no more than a bit of light snogging to his otherwise chaste films. But then, in a free market, sexualisation goes in one direction, and one direction only, and for a simple reason: sex sells.

Whitehouse really was a “little Canute”, clinging onto the past even as she was swamped by emergent cultural elements that soon became dominant. Few people have ever been as loudly consistent in their beliefs as Mary Whitehouse was. And few people have ever lost as hard as Mary Whitehouse lost.


Louise Perry is a freelance writer and campaigner against sexual violence.

Louise_m_perry

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

83 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lydia R
Lydia R
3 years ago

That horse has already bolted. We do have a new fashionable prurience in the form of Wokeism, though.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  Lydia R

Interesting observation. When people are devoted to responding to a thing with disgust, does that tell us about whether that thing is in fact disgusting, or rather that those people get a strange turn-on from feeling disgusted. Not to mention their public parade of being disgusted … not to mention their insistence that failure on the part of others to be disgusted is a mark of the others’ irredeemable moral vileness … not to mention their insistence that the laws must be changed, museums emptied, and so on, to enforce this delicious perpetual-disgustedness-as-holiness.

David Barry
David Barry
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

But disgust was not the only response. Many of her supporters were not disgusted, they simply thought that much of the stuff she was objecting to was poor quality television.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  David Barry

David Barry, I very much take your point.

Apologies for lack of clarity on my part.

I was broadening out a point in the article about Mrs Whitehouse’s ‘visceral fear of homosexuality’ (and similar mentions of disgust-related emotions, such as things being ‘shocking’, and being ‘outraged’ or ‘horrified’).

My broadening out was a general observation that people committed to a particular worldview or cause sometimes appear paradoxically to get a ‘buzz’ out of what offends or disgusts them. (For example, the trope – whether fair or not – that campaigners for decency are themselves sex-obsessed.) In other words, it may tell you something about them, as much as the issue being protested about.

This I broadened out to an observation that, once so committed, people can see failure on the part of others to join in with their reaction of disgust to be a mark of those others’ moral deficiency. ‘Silence is violence’, for example.

I am not taking any position on Mrs Whitehouse as an individual, or on the merits or otherwise of any of her campaigns, by the way.

I could touch on the theory of disgust as the origin of ethical views, but I have said a lot already.

Brian Dorsley
Brian Dorsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

I disagree. Homosexual acts are objectively disgusting. I have a doctor friend who’s shown me photos of patient injuries caused by homosexual acts. It’s vomit-inducing. My disgust is real, not performative.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

Disgust is an emotion which can only be experienced subjectively.

Graham Evans
Graham Evans
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

You should see some of the things that heterosexuals get up to.

Tim Knight
Tim Knight
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

What on earth was the doctor doing with such pictures? And once you’ve answered that, why was he showing you? And lastly why were you interested?

Karen Vowles
Karen Vowles
2 years ago
Reply to  Tim Knight

is that really the point here?

Natalija Svobodné
Natalija Svobodné
3 years ago
Reply to  Brian Dorsley

Well is simple then don’t do it! each to their own bed! but dont makes rules about sex with consenting adults! there is nothing liberal in religion or a government involved in moderating a person’s private life.

Sarah Packman
Sarah Packman
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

Wow

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  Sarah Packman

Sarah Packman, would you be willing to elaborate a little, please? I mean this sincerely, as I am interested in learning from people’s views; that’s why I visit forums such as this. Thank you.

R Perspectives
R Perspectives
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

This quote from Eric Fromm seems apposite.
I am not sure whether Mary Whitehouse was filled with envy or hate but certainly it is to be seen aplenty in the recent protests and riots.

“There is perhaps no phenomenon which
contains so much destructive feelings as “moral indignation,” which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue. The “indignant” person has for once the satisfaction of despising and treating a creature as “inferior,” coupled with the feeling of his own superiority and rightness” Eric Fromm

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago
Reply to  R Perspectives

Thank you, Richard. More than apposite.

Michael Whittock
Michael Whittock
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

Do you think it might be possible that Mary Whitehouse campaigned, not from any dark psychological motivation, but because she believed that society was going in the wrong direction and that it would lead to huge societal problems in the future such as child abuse and family breakdown? I’m struck by the fact that so often those who campaign about moral issues are targeted with psychological and/or moral slurs themselves. Perhaps we do that because we think it exonerates us from considering what they are saying.

Jonathan Marshall
Jonathan Marshall
3 years ago

I think you have hit the nail on the head, Michael.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago

Michael Whitlock, thank you for your question.

[I don’t know whether when writing you would have seen my response to David Barry (above), in which I stated that I was not taking any position on Mrs Whitehouse or her points.]

I think it quite possible, maybe even probable (but I am in no position to know either way) that her motives were noble and her campaign visionary. Or it may have been a mix of good and less good points, well or less well presented.

I have a vague memory, from many years ago, of her saying on television something along the lines that her objection was obviously not to sex, but to unwholesome or debased treatment of it in the media. That seemed to me to be a sound point to make.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago

In 1914 when Eliza Doolittle exited the stage in Shaw’s “Pygmalion” saying “Not Bloody Likely” There was shock, working class language was not often portrayed in drama and fiction like it actually was; a greater concern was that the play was poking genteel fun at the class system.

In my view I think that was where Whitehouse stood. Like those who flocked to H M Tennant type productions on the London Stage in the 50s and 60s, the stage should not shock or disturb. Her principle target was “The Wednesday Play” which were usually set in working class homes and featured massive class disjunction and sexual discord. Anyone under the age of 50 will probably not realise that such programmes could be made for television. Dennis Potter’s finest moments. My own feeling is that it was class as much as anything else that got Mrs Whitehouse incessantly to force herself to watch things she didn’t enjoy then set pen to paper, for a while she signed her letters “Mrs E B Whitehouse” Mary came later.

If you are looking to someone at the time identifying porn as damaging to and hateful of, women the Germaine Greer was the person holding the flag. “The Female Eunuch” which I read when I was about 17, is one of the books that I recall making a massive impact on me. . The other person who identified porn in that way was Lord Longford. As Bernard Levin once said “People ask the wrong question about Longford when they ask ‘is he mad’. Of course he is mad, but is he right”

Gerry Fruin
Gerry Fruin
3 years ago

Yes your right. For me the one thing that was apparent about Mrs Whitehouse was her decency. Agree or not with her she would never stoop to sneering and belittling people as is the common mode of counter argument now.
A lady to the last.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
3 years ago

Michael Whittock, thank you for your question.

[A couple of preliminary points: (1) I posted substantially the following two days ago, but it has been ‘pending’ for some reason. (2) I don’t know whether when writing you would have seen my response to David Barry, in which I stated that I was not taking any position on Mrs Whitehouse or her views.]

I think it quite possible, maybe even probable (but I am in no position to know either way) that Mrs Whitehouse’s motives were noble and her campaign visionary.

Or it may have been a mix of good and less good points, well or less well presented.

But I do have a vague memory, from many years ago, of her saying on television something along the lines that her objection was obviously not to sex, but rather to unwholesome or debased treatment of it in the media. That seemed to me to be a sound campaigning standpoint.

Karen Vowles
Karen Vowles
2 years ago

unfortunately she looked like everyones maiden aunt. If she looked younger and sexier we may have listened to her. yep! sex sells.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

S,’truth..Anyone would think the world was going to end up with transvestites recruited and paid to tell stories to 5year olds..as part of the curriculum…and boys be allowed to go into girls changing rooms..by law.
Or the BBC stage a crossdresser reality show and bill it as entertainment.
Phew we missed a bullet there..!

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Lydia R

That horse has already bolted. We do have a new fashionable prurience in the form of Wokeism, though.

‘Wokeism’ seems very weak compared to the prurience and anti-prurience of the good old days, though. The Itch and its enemies don’t seem to attract the masses any more.

Natalija Svobodné
Natalija Svobodné
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

Oh I am very worried about Wokeism, Its neo marxist bent is in the institutions, education system and law making – the churchy puritans were kept largely to knitting groups by comparison.

Colin Macdonald
Colin Macdonald
3 years ago

It interests me that you say the only people to challenge Saville were old women. In a former workplace I had a very arrogant, sometimes bullying manager, I disliked him, but like our betracksuited former national treasure he was generally popular. I recall an incident where I was loaned to another department, he appeared shortly afterward, with a “helpful” comment about the state of my lab coat. In the room was my elderly colleague, a very sweet old lady, I was shocked and amused at the torrent of foul mouthed abuse that she directed at my boss, in a response to an intervention that was fairly benign by his standards. He just had to stand there and take it.

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

John Lydon of the Sex Pistols tried to make his concerns about Jimmy Savile public in 1978.

Jeremy Poynton
Jeremy Poynton
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

And Terry Christian knew all along what Saville was up to and did nothing

Tim Knight
Tim Knight
3 years ago
Reply to  Last Jacobin

He is a treasure. Lydon. I speak as an ex punk now of an age to be deeply moved and inspired by Lydon’s compassion and commitment to his wife of 40 years as she copes with dementia.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago

The comparison with Canute is odd. He was not exhorting the waves to retreat. He knew that he did not have the power to do that and that is what he was demonstrating.

Clare Webber
Clare Webber
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

True.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

Beat me to it…and the point was to demonstrate something he knew about the limits of power, to his circle of courtiers. Losing *hard* in history, seems often to be the precursor to *winning big*.

Tim Knight
Tim Knight
3 years ago
Reply to  Alan Thorpe

Yeah but it is common cliche to assume the defiance obstinate metaphor.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago

Actually NO she was not wrong to ally with Mrs Thatcher because the free market only becomes a slavemarket if the guardians of culture are slack and malignant Marxists. It was not until Mrs Thatcher had long been driven from office that intimacy was fully marketised and with the vociferous support of loud sections of the left, which was going through a spuriously pro-market phase at the time. It is this marketisation of bodily intimacy which allowed for the various extremes and lunacies currently facing our children and causing much more unhappiness than they solve

Chris Hopwood
Chris Hopwood
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

………..er, Mrs Thatcher’s reign was the golden era of Page 3. Its star, Sam Fox, was one of the three most photographed women in the UK at that time. The Sun, a great supporter of Maggie didn’t appear to cater for university educated people.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Hopwood

Nonsense. Page three had been fully established in its then form for years before Mrs Thatcher came to prominence. Blame Roy Jenkins and the imposition of total laxity upon society thanks to his excessively lenient reforms to policing and law.

Starry Gordon
Starry Gordon
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Mrs Thatcher was a great enthusiast of capitalism, and capitalism is about making money and grabbing market share. What you have today is absolutely the outcome of capitalism. Capitalism does not provide for ‘guardians of culture’ and if they get in the way it sweeps them aside.

Ralph Windsor
Ralph Windsor
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

Unlike socialism…….Oh, wait.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

Bilge. Capitalism works within the moral norms of whichever society is intelligent enough to host it. It’ socialism which destroys guardians of culture and replaces them with goons like Zhdanov.

Marion Fallon
Marion Fallon
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

So the greed, huge inequality & corrupt capitalism is working so well?? Covid19 has shown this up for it’s real horror & now finding Tories almost enacting socialism & basic income.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  Marion Fallon

Socialist thieves always call property rights “greed”. And what’s wrong with inequality? Nothing. Enough is enough and it’s the proper base line for further progression – in an economy not clotted with socialist back scratching and corruption. The worst social conditions in capitalism are better than the median conditions in any socialist dump that has ever been – and that’s without mentioning the gulags and concentration camps.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Starry Gordon

Of course there’s absolutely no prurience or pornography in China Cuba or Venezeula..or ever was in USSR.

Ralph Windsor
Ralph Windsor
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

In private life Woy was noted for his appreciation of lightly clothed ladies! In public life he was but one of a long line of second rate Home Secretaries (briefly interrupted, perhaps, by Douglas Hurd and Willie Whitelaw) which extends to the present day.

Graham Evans
Graham Evans
3 years ago
Reply to  Ralph Windsor

Presumably you think that Henry Brooke was a fine Home Secretary

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

It went back to the very early 1970s… but Page Three is still a bit of a step away from the sort of material that these days regularly turns up as evidence in the passing procession of prosecutions through the courts these days.

Peter Dunn
Peter Dunn
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

Not to mention the multicultural agenda Jenkins had up his sleeve..and kept it there while it was rolled out like a carpet across a once great country..

Bob Sleigh
Bob Sleigh
3 years ago

“If Whitehouse had been alive in 2016, she would surely have voted Leave.”

Oh really? We’re quite sure about that are we? Or are the writer predjudices showing?

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob Sleigh

I’m pretty sure she’s right

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Bob Sleigh

It was irrelevant to the case being made.

Jonathan Story
Jonathan Story
3 years ago

Could this article be rewritten, first giving the background to MW’s campaigns, vis that divorces were rare, crime was low, and the country very law abiding. This was the great achievement of the Victorian moralists, recorded in Gertrude Himmelfarb’s The De-Moralization of Society: from Victorian Virtues to Modern Values. LMary Whitehouse lost. But did the UK gain? Discuss.

Geoff Cox
Geoff Cox
3 years ago

I feel a 1970s joke coming on …..

“I read it from cover to cover and it was every bit as disgusting as I thought it would be”. Mrs Mary Whitehouse.

Ted Ditchburn
Ted Ditchburn
3 years ago
Reply to  Geoff Cox

🙂

Last Jacobin
Last Jacobin
3 years ago

The National Viewers and Listeners Association gave Savile an award for his TV Work. Those ‘obstinate ladies’ didn’t really stand up to him, did they?

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 years ago

‘In 1977, she pursued a private prosecution against Gay News for printing a poem that described a Roman centurion fantasising about having sex with the body of the crucified Christ’.

Rather than private prosecutions blah blah wouldn’t it have been simpler for a supporter to have beheaded the editor of Gay News? Then the BBC would have told us that he’d asked for it. Wouldn’t it?

Patrick Martin
Patrick Martin
3 years ago

She was substantially right, but her style alienated potential allies. She was a gift to Alinskyite detractors.

David Barry
David Barry
3 years ago
Reply to  Patrick Martin

“Pick your battles” is generally good advice.

Derek M
Derek M
3 years ago

There is of course no such thing as the right or wrong side of history

Mark Cole
Mark Cole
3 years ago

Wokeism is different its largely based on ignorance

MW was directionally correct -and ridiculing her is a form of EVIL – her intent was to protect the next generation from abuse or developing a weak moral value system based on “new norms”

Whilst most adults born in the 60s would probably say a little bit of sex and violence is realistic and adds to the film, its also likely many would say we have allowed it to go far too far ;the sex and violence is gratuitous, is shown at too young and age and is uncontrolled through the new social mediums. Undoubtedly there will be backlash in fact pushback started with a line drawn in 2018 defeating proposal to teach and normalise certain sex acts to 12 year olds – references still get through in “12” rated films though.

Is it fair to say that over the last 60/70 years Film and TV producers seem to use less of the art of dialogue and character development and scenic atmospheric shooting, ?- after all its harder than a sex and violence shot…

Lyn Griffiths
Lyn Griffiths
3 years ago

I cannot believe the disjointed article that looks upon Mary Whitehouse as a bigoted fuddy duddy. Louise she was to be a breath of fresh air for the young and old and maybe we did not agree with all she stood for. But Louise we all as a family and as young adults began to watch TV without cringing with embarrassment or disgust at the crudness the BBC and many other channels claimed to be entertainment. Sadly with the death, and the likes of Mary Whitehouse disapearing, the cruditiy, bad language and sexual media output returning from 9pm makes millions of very nice people who have an understanding of parameters once again cringe at the diversity of bad taste back in our very own living rooms. Louise maybe one day you will understand the difference between open mindedness and being led by the balls by astute business money makers.

D.C.S Turner
D.C.S Turner
3 years ago

You give no real indication of what she got right. The only cultural reference is to her objection to Dennis Potter, widely acknowledged now as one of our finest playwrights.

Ralph Windsor
Ralph Windsor
3 years ago
Reply to  D.C.S Turner

Widely acknowledged at North London dinner parties?

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
3 years ago
Reply to  D.C.S Turner

She was anti pedo. I mean you would give her that, right?

seanmatthews1
seanmatthews1
3 years ago

It is a foolish and sometimes dangerous mistake to think that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

melfordhall5
melfordhall5
3 years ago

Mary Whitehouse was a sexually frustrated prude, She would wade through pornography every night, after Mr Whitehouse had gone to bed.

Like Queen Victoria she found it hard to imagine that lesbianism was a real thing, but her hatred of homosexuals knew no bounds, and that is the only thing that compelled her to attack pedophilia, only ‘male pedophilia’.

And because of her piety she failed to see the involvement of Priests, Bishops, and Vicars.

Caroline Galwey
Caroline Galwey
3 years ago

What a lovely guy that Sir Hugh Greene must have been …

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago

Actually NO she was not wrong to ally with Mrs Thatcher because the free market only becomes a whorehouse if the guardians of culture are slack and malignant Marxists. It was not until Mrs Thatcher had long been driven from office that sexuality was fully marketised and with the vociferous support of loud sections of the left, which was going through a spuriously pro-market phase at the time. It is this marketisation of sex which allowed for the various extremes and lunacies currently facing our children and causing much more unhappiness than they solve.

M Spahn
M Spahn
3 years ago

Having clicked on the link about Lord of the Rings, I see the article is mostly about how the feminists of Wokehadi twitter are aghast that LotR will have sexually explicit scenes. Whitehouse’s legacy would appear to be quite alive and well.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
3 years ago

Nice article. The only thing I’d take issue with is the author’s definition of what Mary Whitehouse got right and what she got wrong. According to the author what she got wrong was, for example, her stance against homosexuality, which by chance we now agree is fine. And according to the author what Whitehouse got right was, for example, her stance against paedophilia, which also by chance we all now agree is morally wrong. So does the author perhaps believe that our society has, after many centuries, finally got things morally straight in our heads? It certainly sounds like it.

Graham Giles
Graham Giles
3 years ago

I think there’s a good chance that Mrs Thatcher was actually a supporter of Mary Whitehouse’s crusade, bearing her mind her (Thatcher’s) disgust at seeing a painting at an art exhibition in her constituency because it looked like it was “full of sperm”.

Also, both were high church Anglicans and of roughly the same generation (though Mrs Whitehouse was the elder of the two).

Perhaps ironically, another person who later became a high church Anglican was Denis Lemon, the editor of Gay News at the time Mrs Whitehouse launched her prosecution against it.

Richard Slack
Richard Slack
3 years ago
Reply to  Graham Giles

Mrs Thatcher was raised as a methodist and, so far as I know, was not a church-goer. She was most impressed by the Chief Rabbi

Graham Giles
Graham Giles
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

She always referred to herself as an Anglican. I agree she and Jonathan Sacks got on well.

I’ve just found this very good interview about Mrs Thatcher, which states that we’re both right; she was brought up as a Methodist and became an Anglican in later life.

https://www.theosthinktank….

It does to be fair cast some doubt on what I said about her support for Mary Whitehouse; it seems that she was very reluctant to bring sexual morality into politics, though it still looks as though privately she had much sympathy for what Mrs Whitehouse was trying to do.

Andrew D
Andrew D
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Slack

And Mrs Whitehouse was low-church/evangelical, not high church

Jonathan Marshall
Jonathan Marshall
3 years ago

There wasn’t a porn star who changed her name to Mary Whitehouse. I think Mary Kenny, in the Spectator article referred to, was mixing up Mary Millington (who did, sadly, commit suicide) and Whitehouse, a soft porn magazine Millington often modelled for.

Ray Ward
Ray Ward
3 years ago

There was, and I think still is, a magazine called Whitehouse, but there also WAS a porn performer or stripper who called herself Mary Whitehouse, not the same person as the tragic Mary Millington.

Don Lightband
Don Lightband
3 years ago

Oh great. So what she priimarily “got right” was, according to this author, freaking out over the efforts of the Paedophile Information Exchange – a group that sought only to facilitate an ever greater understanding and broader thought. – by forever conflating, quite mindlessly, the notion of paedophilia with abuse. ABUSE. How relentlessly daft is that? How, finally, could it differ from automatically conflating homosexuality with violent a**l rape, etc etc etc? This author then blithely proceeds to take Savile as her prime ‘example’, a man whose supposed misdeeds were never ever proven, and only ever wildly ALLEGED.

If this is the calibre of Unherd offerings i seriously think we have gotten nowhere AT ALL. Neither, apparently, do we even want to…

M Spahn
M Spahn
3 years ago

ddd

jjphoto
jjphoto
3 years ago

First time I heard about her was from the Pink Floyd song, Pigs (“Hey you, Whitehouse….haha, charade you are-ah….”). A lot think this refers to the White House (1600 Pennsylvania Ave.), but no….

David Simpson
David Simpson
3 years ago

This reminds me of Osama bin Laden’s manifesto, issued either just before or after 9/11. I remember thinking at the time how much he got right about the decline and decadence of the west. Little that has happened since has caused me to think he was wrong then to say what he did, however unlovely the actions inspired by it.

richard.jerrett
richard.jerrett
3 years ago

My summary of this pointless article “Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day”

Ray Ward
Ray Ward
3 years ago

I’m old enough to remember Whitehouse, right from the start of her campaign. Like most such people who go on about “sex and violence”, she mentioned the latter only as a defence against accusations of prudery; she was, of course, utterly obsessed with sex and could see “filth” anywhere. Ronnie Barker did a spoof of such a person, saying he heard someone clearly say in a recent programme: “Look here”. When asked what was offensive about that he said: “Well, its obvious what he meant – look here through this keyhole and this woman taking her clothes off – her firm young naked body ….” (frantic slurping). Even programme titles were revealing: United; Quick, Before They Catch Us; THE BATH FESTIVAL!! Yes, her National Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association did give Jimmy Savile (please note how to spell his name!) an award for “wholesome television”, and he was a member of the ridiculous Longford committee “investigating” pornography. As Bernard Levin said, while she denied advocating censorship it was evident that her proposals really couldn’t mean anything else. Oh, and Sir Hugh Greene’s portrait of her showed her with five breasts, not six, and was entitled SANCTITY. (Pause while you see the pun.) A porn magazine, which I think still exists, was cheekily entitled Whitehouse, and some years ago there was a television series called Ban This Filth spoofing a woman obviously based on Whitehouse in all her sanctimonious idiocy. Things vastly more extreme than in her day are now freely available, and we don’t appear to have sunk into decadence and degredation, so one wonders what she had to worry about.

mark taha
mark taha
3 years ago

Couldn’t stand the woman. The PC brigade are even worse.

John Jones
John Jones
3 years ago

It’s curious that the article makes no mention of Lord Longford, who with Whitehouse waged a constant campaign against the “filth” of pornography.

After his death, it was revealed that Longford and Whitehouse between them had the largest private collection of pornography in Europe. One can imagine them, sitting side by side, not quite touching (oh the delicious frisson of that near touching!) pouring over page after page of erotica, pausing over a particularly titillating image, sharing that moment of excitement as each new disgusting depiction of genitalia was revealed.

This is classic Freudian denial. Whitehouse was obsessed with sex, perhaps because of her own repressed background. By rejecting consciously the very thing she craved, she was able to strike a balance between her sexual obsession and her repression, her denial offering a cover for her prurient interest.

Many modern feminists seem to display the same psychological defense mechanism, rejecting pornography as somehow “oppressive”, yet endlessly demanding liberation from patriarchal sexual repression. I suspect that an investigation would reveal that the feminists most opposed to the “objectification” of women are precisely those who aren’t getting any male attention.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
3 years ago
Reply to  John Jones

Alpha plus for that, well done indeed.

Troy MacKenzie
Troy MacKenzie
3 years ago
Reply to  John Jones

This seems like a rather uncharitable interpretation. I would imagine the people who chase internet pedophiles have large amounts of kiddie porn. Is this also Freudian denial, or are they legitimately trying to catch pedophiles?