September 19, 2023 - 1:30pm
Freddie Sayers sat down with UnHerd contributing editor Mary Harrington to discuss the Russell Brand investigation and accusations.
The full conversation is available above.
The Russell Brand divide: could both sides be right?
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.
SubscribeIt is an important reminder – both sides can be valid and we can have nuanced and evolving conversations.
Men can have power over women in the sexual arena, of course. However women have power over men as well because simply allegations of sexual abuse can destroy a man’s reputation.
I would like to see, within the public debate, women take more responsibility for their part in sexual dynamics and for it to be acknowledged that they can have a lot of power. This will help create more trust between the sexes.
Try making that point at you local WI meeting ..and let me know how you get on; assuming you live to tell the take!
Superb analysis from Freddy Sayers and Mary Harrington.
Agreed, this was excellent – – reciprocal discourse that cuts to the heart of the matter and leaves everyone in a better place as a result.
My usual admiration of Mary H took a hit on this occasion I’m afraid. Perhaps the fact that she found the possibility of being “in RB’s shoes” laughable gave rise to a certain smugness which did nothing to convince me of her scantily claimed fairness in the discussion.
She mentioned the possibility of such predatory behaviour by powerful women upon vulnerable men not at all; not once. Instead it seems all the vulnerability is on the side of young females who, presumably must be completely lacking in any cognitive abilities. In my experience, females are usually far more canny than males.
She then implied, in a “power asymmetry” situation full concent on the part of a female somehow equtes to a kind of coercion!! While we all know truth is lies and fake is real these days, I’ve come to expect more from Mary H. It seems girls without morals exposing themselves online and then going on to online prostitution is also the fault of men, somehow?
Poor Freddie was so taken aback his feeble effort at suggesting a court of law might be a fairer option that he dropped such a notion immediately. Mary H clearly has no interest in such a recourse and went on to speak of “Proper retribution” as preferable to legal justice.. one imagines that to be burning at the stake perhaps? Or hanged, drawn and quartered perhaps as a far preferable option?
I think Mary H may have thought she was addressing a gaggle of rabid, men-hatin women rather than a mixed audience? Disappointing.
As much as I admire Freddy’s and Mary’s intelligence, integrity and thoughtfulness, it worries me they do not pin down the single most critical issue in the Brand saga: that Brand is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
In bygone days no news medium woulld have dreamed of treating these allegations – dressed up in full mob-fueling, docudrama regalia – as established fact, hounding someone out of their livelihood with the full backing of politicians. We should all be asking ourselves where this rules-free mob behavior leads – because it is not to a pretty place.
And Thatcher got this right: https://x.com/realmrsthatcher/status/1703823700120760605?s=46
So, I am left with a few questions here.
First, are they implying that powerful, famous men, men who are good at bending others to their will through charm etc, are guilty of sexual abuse because they bent a woman to their will with charm to get her into bed? That sounds and awful lot like seduction itself would be sexual abuse. And, if we are being honest, how many women have slept with charming men quite willingly, but then later regretted it and felt manipulated? Was he guilty of sexual abuse for charming her into bed? Is that the case they are making?
Second, women very often are attracted to bad boys, particularly rich and famous bad boys. Rich men tend to have a certain ability to charm, to persist in going after what they want, is charm and persistence in seducing a woman now illegal? Is that an asymmetry of power in some way? Are men and women only to engage each other when both are equally wealthy and equally charming?
I have no issue with the idea that anytime a woman loses the capacity to say “no” and have it respected, whether through physical force or the use of drugs etc, it is a crime. I do however take issue with the idea that a woman can be seduced by charm and fame and wealth and then claim that she was abused rather than admitting she made a bad decision.
A regretted sexual encounter is not rape. So long as a woman has agency in a situation, it is not rape. Her failure to exorcise her agency is not his criminal behavior.
Though the conversation was interesting and the subject matter important, it’s sad that the media is more than happy to concentrate on this issue, and not the even more important topics Russell Brand was bringing up on a daily basis – like the complete take over of governments, the media and academia by the pharmaceutical industry.
This led to a totally inappropriate virus response by our government which caused huge long term damage to our lives, our economy and our health. For example, the all cause mortality figures by jab status recently uncovered in the ONS stats, reveal nothing short of democide. Yet here we are discussing Russell Brand’s behaviour, not his calamitous observations.
Sexual allegations against men is very easy to make and has been used successfully as a weapon by the left for several years against those they don’t like.