August 1, 2023 - 7:00pm
Because human beings are somehow condemned to never learn any lessons whatsoever, today we are treated to the delight of comedian David Baddiel, now nearing 60, pontificating on the problem of “the male gaze”. Currently working on a book of the same title, following Jews Don’t Count (2021) and the God Desire (2023), Baddiel bravely suggests that men are highly visually motivated when it comes to women.
In an interview with the Times, he repeats his insight, first articulated on Beth Rigby’s show on Sky News, that heterosexual men can’t help their interest in women, but also that they can both objectify women’s bodies and respect their minds. Thanks, I guess.
Declining to admit to whether he still uses pornography — in the past he has said he does, and doesn’t deny it now — Baddiel says that he is strongly convinced of his thesis. But what does this admission amount to? The comedian of course adds some liberal and egalitarian caveats because, as he says, “obviously women need to be CEOs and judges and politicians and prime ministers.”
Yet the visual element is on his mind: “I can’t help that interest”, he admits. While Baddiel makes it clear that he is “actually listening” to whichever female body is making noises at any given time, and believes that women are just as capable as men, he worries that there is a tension at the heart of his experience of the opposite sex, that “those two things feel contradictory”.
But, as every major religion that believes there are two kinds of humans has understood, there is nothing contradictory about this at all. The precise reason why all major religions have edicts around sexual desire is because without a commitment to being slightly more dedicated to a higher reality, there is nothing to stop any of us from engaging in all kinds of disordered behaviour, from over-eating to sex addiction to drug abuse.
Liberalism, on the other hand, suggests that desire is tied to freedom, and whatever the market and the state allows is morally neutral, and that people should be free, encouraged even, to discover their true selves through consumption and the instrumentalisation of others, so long as they have “consented”.
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.
SubscribeI don’t understand what Baddiel says that is wrong. Certainly men have a physical interest in women, is the writer suggesting that we’re limited to that? By having a sexual interest, we cannot have a proper relationship?
I think she’s pulling out the old idea that us stupid blokes can only consider women as sex objects. That’s a stupid and nasty an idea as men worrying that women just think of them as walking wallets.
Maybe, I’ve got it all wrong, I read this three times and still don’t understand what she’s trying to say.
Neither do I. And I don’t really understand Baddiel’s point either. Heterosexual men fancy women but can still respect them? Men like women’s looks and brains? Some women are good looking and clever, while some women are clever but not good looking, and some women are good looking but not clever and some women are neither? I mean, I’d argue that if we weren’t in a fog of utter insanity, then this is fairly self-evident. See also: men.
I think I understand what Baddiel might be getting at, I think he’s saying that the idea that the “male gaze” is somehow insidious and toxic is silly. Men look at women (and vice versa, don’t teenage girls have pictures of pop stars on their bedroom walls?). If men then hassle women or are disparaging towards them, then that’s problem.
This “male gaze” idea seems to me one of the stupidest to arise from feminism, and there are a few to choose from.
Generally these ideas have one thing in common – they aim to pathologize normal male behaviour.
sometimes they pathologize normal human behaviour, but only when it is exhibited by men (eg. male jealousy is patriarchal oppression)
sometimes it’s unacceptable behaviour (but really only when men do it – DV)
sometimes it’s done head on. Other times it’s done by false equivalence (seduction = x) or false causality (jokes lead to x)
And after the drubbing has been carried out feminists feign astonishment that men don’t support feminism!
“This “male gaze” idea seems to me one of the stupidest to arise from feminism, and there are a few to choose from.”
Without a doubt men look at women’s bodies differently than women look at men’s bodies. The “male gaze” in that sense is very real.
Characterizing it as feminists do – that it’s necessarily objectifying, that it’s necessarily domineering, that it’s ‘wrong’ or ‘abusive’ or ‘patriarchal’ – is where they go wrong. It’s just part of the way men and women are built.
Well maybe those of us with the body of an Adonis and face of chiselled marble experience the female gaze differently.
I can barely go down the pub without many women throwing themselves at my feet.
Nurse, nurse is it time for tea?
Do you think women went to Top Gun Maverick for the airplanes?
Well maybe those of us with the body of an Adonis and face of chiselled marble experience the female gaze differently.
I can barely go down the pub without many women throwing themselves at my feet.
Nurse, nurse is it time for tea?
Do you think women went to Top Gun Maverick for the airplanes?
Generally these ideas have one thing in common – they aim to pathologize normal male behaviour.
sometimes they pathologize normal human behaviour, but only when it is exhibited by men (eg. male jealousy is patriarchal oppression)
sometimes it’s unacceptable behaviour (but really only when men do it – DV)
sometimes it’s done head on. Other times it’s done by false equivalence (seduction = x) or false causality (jokes lead to x)
And after the drubbing has been carried out feminists feign astonishment that men don’t support feminism!
“This “male gaze” idea seems to me one of the stupidest to arise from feminism, and there are a few to choose from.”
Without a doubt men look at women’s bodies differently than women look at men’s bodies. The “male gaze” in that sense is very real.
Characterizing it as feminists do – that it’s necessarily objectifying, that it’s necessarily domineering, that it’s ‘wrong’ or ‘abusive’ or ‘patriarchal’ – is where they go wrong. It’s just part of the way men and women are built.
I think I understand what Baddiel might be getting at, I think he’s saying that the idea that the “male gaze” is somehow insidious and toxic is silly. Men look at women (and vice versa, don’t teenage girls have pictures of pop stars on their bedroom walls?). If men then hassle women or are disparaging towards them, then that’s problem.
This “male gaze” idea seems to me one of the stupidest to arise from feminism, and there are a few to choose from.
Neither do I. And I don’t really understand Baddiel’s point either. Heterosexual men fancy women but can still respect them? Men like women’s looks and brains? Some women are good looking and clever, while some women are clever but not good looking, and some women are good looking but not clever and some women are neither? I mean, I’d argue that if we weren’t in a fog of utter insanity, then this is fairly self-evident. See also: men.
I don’t understand what Baddiel says that is wrong. Certainly men have a physical interest in women, is the writer suggesting that we’re limited to that? By having a sexual interest, we cannot have a proper relationship?
I think she’s pulling out the old idea that us stupid blokes can only consider women as sex objects. That’s a stupid and nasty an idea as men worrying that women just think of them as walking wallets.
Maybe, I’ve got it all wrong, I read this three times and still don’t understand what she’s trying to say.
“We were not designed to see this many people”? Huh? How about “we were not designed to see this much of people”?
On balance this article feels a bit rubbish. It is prima facile obvious that men are interested in women’s bodies, and that men tend towards divorcing sexual interest from a more holistic relationship. To be alarmed and worried by this fact seems almost comically naive. Instead we should acknowledge it and then shape cultures to account for it; indeed, accepting this reality has given the weaker sex the upper hand many times in history. Traditional sexual norms for centuries helped nudge each sex into happier relationships than they could manufacture left to their own impulses.
I was on the Tube today with my wife when a woman sat down across from us wearing the most revealing dress. My wife smirked and guffawed watching me and every other man in the train steal glances. But as we discussed later, the more interesting thing was to consider the woman’s state of mind. She didn’t seem to relish those stolen glances; she was studiously oblivious or maybe uncomfortable. So… why would she choose to wear that in such a public place, with so many strangers’ eyes about? The answers are not happy ones.
If you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual then advertise that. But if you advertise your body that’s what people will think about. It’s like personal branding… you just can’t be the good value chocolate and the indulgent luxury chocolate at the same time.
I think you could do both as a woman, but you have to acknowledge that a dress that reveals a lot will inevitably catch the attention of a lot of heterosexual men (and in a less concupiscent, more curious, way, everyone else). I don’t think sexiness precludes intelligence, in fact a potent combo, but it’s certainly disingenuous, and even rather mean-spirited to dress in such a way as to make yourself sexually desirable and then abhor the glances. Obviously touching, overt leering, dribbling, and eyes popping out like Tom when he sees the sexy female cat are contraindicated.
Your point that the men were stealing glances says it all; they were too respectful to want to embarrass her. Going against what their hormones are shouting at them.
I agree, the article is weak, patronising and annoying to read.
It is a cheap stab at the usual male toxicity and that we should learn to control these primeval urges (to look at women). Polite society had organised itself so we all conducted ourselves in an appropriate way, by protecting our modesty and no sex before marriage etc. Since the 60’s And the sexual revolution, which is good in a lot of ways, the sexualisation and empowerment of women has led to their objectification.
I agree with your assessment on clothing, advertising your body and being taken seriously. The thing is, if I was to go out in my Speedos (if I had some) or tight ballet type leggings, showing bum and man bits,l, I bet I would get stared at, judged, laughed at or maybe even propositioned. It’s just that men tend not to do that or want to do that! Women can wear what they want but men have to change their behaviour and not look…
I think you could do both as a woman, but you have to acknowledge that a dress that reveals a lot will inevitably catch the attention of a lot of heterosexual men (and in a less concupiscent, more curious, way, everyone else). I don’t think sexiness precludes intelligence, in fact a potent combo, but it’s certainly disingenuous, and even rather mean-spirited to dress in such a way as to make yourself sexually desirable and then abhor the glances. Obviously touching, overt leering, dribbling, and eyes popping out like Tom when he sees the sexy female cat are contraindicated.
Your point that the men were stealing glances says it all; they were too respectful to want to embarrass her. Going against what their hormones are shouting at them.
I agree, the article is weak, patronising and annoying to read.
It is a cheap stab at the usual male toxicity and that we should learn to control these primeval urges (to look at women). Polite society had organised itself so we all conducted ourselves in an appropriate way, by protecting our modesty and no sex before marriage etc. Since the 60’s And the sexual revolution, which is good in a lot of ways, the sexualisation and empowerment of women has led to their objectification.
I agree with your assessment on clothing, advertising your body and being taken seriously. The thing is, if I was to go out in my Speedos (if I had some) or tight ballet type leggings, showing bum and man bits,l, I bet I would get stared at, judged, laughed at or maybe even propositioned. It’s just that men tend not to do that or want to do that! Women can wear what they want but men have to change their behaviour and not look…
“We were not designed to see this many people”? Huh? How about “we were not designed to see this much of people”?
On balance this article feels a bit rubbish. It is prima facile obvious that men are interested in women’s bodies, and that men tend towards divorcing sexual interest from a more holistic relationship. To be alarmed and worried by this fact seems almost comically naive. Instead we should acknowledge it and then shape cultures to account for it; indeed, accepting this reality has given the weaker sex the upper hand many times in history. Traditional sexual norms for centuries helped nudge each sex into happier relationships than they could manufacture left to their own impulses.
I was on the Tube today with my wife when a woman sat down across from us wearing the most revealing dress. My wife smirked and guffawed watching me and every other man in the train steal glances. But as we discussed later, the more interesting thing was to consider the woman’s state of mind. She didn’t seem to relish those stolen glances; she was studiously oblivious or maybe uncomfortable. So… why would she choose to wear that in such a public place, with so many strangers’ eyes about? The answers are not happy ones.
If you want to be taken seriously as an intellectual then advertise that. But if you advertise your body that’s what people will think about. It’s like personal branding… you just can’t be the good value chocolate and the indulgent luxury chocolate at the same time.
Oh really? All that ‘male gaze’ blarney. Isn’t this just another instance of feminism trying to control how men see and appreciate women? If it isn’t done along feminist approved lines then males must be indoctrinated out of it – preferably from as early an age as possible.
“I can’t help that interest”, confesses Badiel as if to an inquisitor – but why should he? Is he just another liberal man who has internalised the feminist ethic? No shortage of those among the creative classes.
It’s a mirror of Tom Cruise’s character in Magnolia, an Andrew Tate figure who preached men to ‘respect the c**k and tame the c**t.
It’s a mirror of Tom Cruise’s character in Magnolia, an Andrew Tate figure who preached men to ‘respect the c**k and tame the c**t.
Oh really? All that ‘male gaze’ blarney. Isn’t this just another instance of feminism trying to control how men see and appreciate women? If it isn’t done along feminist approved lines then males must be indoctrinated out of it – preferably from as early an age as possible.
“I can’t help that interest”, confesses Badiel as if to an inquisitor – but why should he? Is he just another liberal man who has internalised the feminist ethic? No shortage of those among the creative classes.
I expect most women want to look attractive, especially the single ones.
Some even want to attract male attention.
The problem for women is that dressing to attract inevitably attracts most men, including all the ones she doesn’t want to attract.
In the past, and maybe to some extent today, women learned how to gently fend off the unwanted suitors without incurring their wrath.
Today a significant number of younger women have turned this dynamic into a man shaming exercise. It’s a game and most men understand the dynamic. However, a not insubstantial number of men have dealt with the game by refusing to play and have decided to go their own way. By all accounts, 80 percent of women are trying to attract the top 20 percent of men and inflict their punishment on the rest. Obviously this approach isn’t going to succeed.
There are going to be a lot of lonely old single women in the future. For men, the Passport Bros movement seems to be providing a solution.
Years ago there was a TV ad, Special K I think. Anyway, there was a beautiful girl on a beach facing us wearing a vest with the words “I’m looking for a man” on it. She turned round and it said “but not you”.
We have to understand this complicated dynamic and men and women have to negotiate difficult interactions. Women are understandably upset when men make clumsy or even derogatory approaches but, they’d never get any sex, if men didn’t approach them not knowing quite what to do.
Yes, I think your point is spot-on, and well made. I’d make the following tiny tweak here, though:
Many women want to attract all the men, or at least many more than they are prepared to have sex with. They enjoy being admired, and it doesn’t much matter by whom.
I agree. They come across as desperately needing attention to feed their egos. There are many examples online. After they hit the wall they post videos of themselves complaining of being invisible to men.
There are also a certain percentage who dress to attract attention for the specific purpose of calling out men as creeps and lechers. They make no secret of it and like the other group they post videos online of their “success.”
Another ad, a poster campaign in the 90s in Italy. A lovely woman, laying on her back naked but for her stockings.
“Le donne se guardano”
My Italian was pretty limited (still is) and I struggled with the meaning.
“Women look at themselves?” “Women look at each other?”
However, according to my Italian wife it was the fairly sexist “women are for looking at”.
I agree. They come across as desperately needing attention to feed their egos. There are many examples online. After they hit the wall they post videos of themselves complaining of being invisible to men.
There are also a certain percentage who dress to attract attention for the specific purpose of calling out men as creeps and lechers. They make no secret of it and like the other group they post videos online of their “success.”
Another ad, a poster campaign in the 90s in Italy. A lovely woman, laying on her back naked but for her stockings.
“Le donne se guardano”
My Italian was pretty limited (still is) and I struggled with the meaning.
“Women look at themselves?” “Women look at each other?”
However, according to my Italian wife it was the fairly sexist “women are for looking at”.
Years ago there was a TV ad, Special K I think. Anyway, there was a beautiful girl on a beach facing us wearing a vest with the words “I’m looking for a man” on it. She turned round and it said “but not you”.
We have to understand this complicated dynamic and men and women have to negotiate difficult interactions. Women are understandably upset when men make clumsy or even derogatory approaches but, they’d never get any sex, if men didn’t approach them not knowing quite what to do.
Yes, I think your point is spot-on, and well made. I’d make the following tiny tweak here, though:
Many women want to attract all the men, or at least many more than they are prepared to have sex with. They enjoy being admired, and it doesn’t much matter by whom.
I expect most women want to look attractive, especially the single ones.
Some even want to attract male attention.
The problem for women is that dressing to attract inevitably attracts most men, including all the ones she doesn’t want to attract.
In the past, and maybe to some extent today, women learned how to gently fend off the unwanted suitors without incurring their wrath.
Today a significant number of younger women have turned this dynamic into a man shaming exercise. It’s a game and most men understand the dynamic. However, a not insubstantial number of men have dealt with the game by refusing to play and have decided to go their own way. By all accounts, 80 percent of women are trying to attract the top 20 percent of men and inflict their punishment on the rest. Obviously this approach isn’t going to succeed.
There are going to be a lot of lonely old single women in the future. For men, the Passport Bros movement seems to be providing a solution.
I wish we could simply upvote an article without having to comment.
When UnHerd used Disqus to handle comments they showed both upvotes and downvotes side by side. A much more revealing system.
The commenting and voting software on UnHerd is atrocious.
The censorship is not particularly good either.
The commenting and voting software on UnHerd is atrocious.
The censorship is not particularly good either.
When UnHerd used Disqus to handle comments they showed both upvotes and downvotes side by side. A much more revealing system.
I wish we could simply upvote an article without having to comment.
It’s hardly rocket science to acknowledge that men respond easily to visual stimuli. As a teenager however it was a shock to discover how quickly girls become of sexual interest to men once they turn 14 or so. The writer’s hubby was laudably avoiding gawping at the attractive young woman, other men cat call and leer at schoolchildren in uniform. It’s really very scary when a couple of years earlier you’ve just been a child.
It’s hardly rocket science to acknowledge that men respond easily to visual stimuli. As a teenager however it was a shock to discover how quickly girls become of sexual interest to men once they turn 14 or so. The writer’s hubby was laudably avoiding gawping at the attractive young woman, other men cat call and leer at schoolchildren in uniform. It’s really very scary when a couple of years earlier you’ve just been a child.
With regard to the “male gaze,” the current narrative in the west is… I can dress however revealing I wish and if you possess the four sixes: the six figure salary, six foot tall, six pack abs, and six inch member, then your gaze is encouraged. However, if you don’t possess the four sixes then you are a lecher and a creep.
In fairness, while this is true for some women, most just want to find someone that they can get on with. (Ooohh, a bit like men)
In fairness, while this is true for some women, most just want to find someone that they can get on with. (Ooohh, a bit like men)
With regard to the “male gaze,” the current narrative in the west is… I can dress however revealing I wish and if you possess the four sixes: the six figure salary, six foot tall, six pack abs, and six inch member, then your gaze is encouraged. However, if you don’t possess the four sixes then you are a lecher and a creep.
When was the last time you saw an unattractive female television presenter, CEO or pop singer?
All the ‘problems’ raised by identity politics fade into complete insignificance compared to the discrimination we all practice, all the time, based on physical attractiveness.
Yesterday: Jo Coburn; Dame Alison Rose; Sam Smith.
OK, I may be wrong about the last one.
Have you watched any TV lately? It’s the attractive women presenters who are now limited in number. Cinderella’s sisters demanded equal representation and got it.
Yesterday: Jo Coburn; Dame Alison Rose; Sam Smith.
OK, I may be wrong about the last one.
Have you watched any TV lately? It’s the attractive women presenters who are now limited in number. Cinderella’s sisters demanded equal representation and got it.
When was the last time you saw an unattractive female television presenter, CEO or pop singer?
All the ‘problems’ raised by identity politics fade into complete insignificance compared to the discrimination we all practice, all the time, based on physical attractiveness.
Of course, this has nothing to do with women, per se, because gay men’s attractions have the same visual focus.
Of course, this has nothing to do with women, per se, because gay men’s attractions have the same visual focus.
“The comedian of course adds some liberal and egalitarian caveats because, as he says, “obviously women need to be CEOs and judges and politicians and prime ministers.”
The above quote is the most revealing (to me anyway) of the article. This is all that feminism seems to amount to now, certainly to self-serving. smuggos like Baddiel: the rights of elite women to have elite jobs along with the elite men so that they can rule the rest of us in the service of the (all psychopathic) elites and to hell with everybody else lower down the pecking order – male or female. Unless they have (elite defined) ‘protected characteristics’ to weaponise of course.
Bourgeois Barbie
Bourgeois Barbie
“The comedian of course adds some liberal and egalitarian caveats because, as he says, “obviously women need to be CEOs and judges and politicians and prime ministers.”
The above quote is the most revealing (to me anyway) of the article. This is all that feminism seems to amount to now, certainly to self-serving. smuggos like Baddiel: the rights of elite women to have elite jobs along with the elite men so that they can rule the rest of us in the service of the (all psychopathic) elites and to hell with everybody else lower down the pecking order – male or female. Unless they have (elite defined) ‘protected characteristics’ to weaponise of course.
Men are supposed to fancy women. it’s called nature.
Men are supposed to fancy women. it’s called nature.
This is an excellent example of the feminist idea that men are just defective women. The “male gaze” is hardwired into the basal ganglia by billions of years of evolution. The male gaze is not created by porn. Porn exists because of the power of the male sexual response to visual stimuli coded into our DNA. Any man who has entered old age will notice that as the powerful chemicals that control the sexual drive subside, the power of an attractive woman to distract all but disappears.
The discourse on this subject focuses first on how evil men are for being designed to notice female fecundity by a patriarchal universe, followed by how unfair it is that females with a proper waist/hip ratio and generally symmetric features receive all the attention.
This dismissing of men and male sexuality has a decidedly puritanical air and the feel of a religious crusade against original sin.
Tying the male gaze to the crime of rape is tenuous at best. Rape is about power, not sexuality. The rise in availability of pornography in the western world has been coupled with a steep decline in rape crimes, indicating that it is more an outlet than a provocation.
Pornography plays on male sexuality and vulgarizes the sexual experience while isolating the user in a world that indulges a primal need at the expense of real human interaction. Like the peddling of any addiction, it is a product produced by greed, not politics.
This is an excellent example of the feminist idea that men are just defective women. The “male gaze” is hardwired into the basal ganglia by billions of years of evolution. The male gaze is not created by porn. Porn exists because of the power of the male sexual response to visual stimuli coded into our DNA. Any man who has entered old age will notice that as the powerful chemicals that control the sexual drive subside, the power of an attractive woman to distract all but disappears.
The discourse on this subject focuses first on how evil men are for being designed to notice female fecundity by a patriarchal universe, followed by how unfair it is that females with a proper waist/hip ratio and generally symmetric features receive all the attention.
This dismissing of men and male sexuality has a decidedly puritanical air and the feel of a religious crusade against original sin.
Tying the male gaze to the crime of rape is tenuous at best. Rape is about power, not sexuality. The rise in availability of pornography in the western world has been coupled with a steep decline in rape crimes, indicating that it is more an outlet than a provocation.
Pornography plays on male sexuality and vulgarizes the sexual experience while isolating the user in a world that indulges a primal need at the expense of real human interaction. Like the peddling of any addiction, it is a product produced by greed, not politics.
Like it or not, it seems to be female culture (the culture of instagram, influencers, filters, Botox, celebs etc) which is pulling us towards a superficial judgement of women based on appearance (plus a kind of cloned personality to match).
Porn for men is a kind of escapism from the complexities of the real world into one of simplified instant gratification. Women have their own forms of escape.
In contrast, the insta-influencer culture outlined above seems to be colonising the real world of female experience and pushing it towards vacuity.
Do men really go for all those ‘over-influenced’ women with their creepy puffed up lips, manicured eyebrows, mask-like wrinkle free faces and cartoonish breast and bum enhancements? Surely these women are playing to the mirror rather than to men.
I certainly don’t. Though I confess seeing a woman reading a book gives me a certain familiar frisson.
But yes I think a lot of it is narcissism. Social media appears to have intensified it. There’s something deeply unattractive, self-centred and shallow about women who are so focussed on their appearance.
I certainly don’t. Though I confess seeing a woman reading a book gives me a certain familiar frisson.
But yes I think a lot of it is narcissism. Social media appears to have intensified it. There’s something deeply unattractive, self-centred and shallow about women who are so focussed on their appearance.
Do men really go for all those ‘over-influenced’ women with their creepy puffed up lips, manicured eyebrows, mask-like wrinkle free faces and cartoonish breast and bum enhancements? Surely these women are playing to the mirror rather than to men.
Like it or not, it seems to be female culture (the culture of instagram, influencers, filters, Botox, celebs etc) which is pulling us towards a superficial judgement of women based on appearance (plus a kind of cloned personality to match).
Porn for men is a kind of escapism from the complexities of the real world into one of simplified instant gratification. Women have their own forms of escape.
In contrast, the insta-influencer culture outlined above seems to be colonising the real world of female experience and pushing it towards vacuity.
Nothing much I disagree with in this article, except that there is certainly now a female gaze at work which reduces men to physical objects as well.
Also, while in real life most of us fall for whole people (genuine narcissists excepted), I’m not sure that rules out simpler fantasies for both men and women.
Nothing much I disagree with in this article, except that there is certainly now a female gaze at work which reduces men to physical objects as well.
Also, while in real life most of us fall for whole people (genuine narcissists excepted), I’m not sure that rules out simpler fantasies for both men and women.
Baddiel is wrong, or at least incapable in some way.
There is absolutely no contradiction between appreciating the female form and respecting their minds. I’m sure there’s plenty of males who can’t quite manage that, and i pity them. In fact, there’s nothing more sexy than a woman who can maintain an intelligent conversation, with confidence. If she’s “hot” that somehow becomes irrelevant, as much as it becomes irrelevant if she’s not.
On the other hand, a “hot” female who can’t maintain such a conversation soon starts to become ‘hard work’. (Much depends, of course, on chemistry.)
The author of this piece is therefore remiss in considering this possibility. It’s what she’d like to see happen, but i can fully understand why she’s not experienced it, if Baddiel is typical of most males. I wouldn’t know… i much prefer talking to women.
Was totally with you until your fourth sentence. Saying that a woman’s being hot (no quotation marks needed) becomes irrelevant after a certain point is more than a little disingenuous for a man genuinely attracted to women to say. If anything I would that a stong attraction to a woman’s looks and her mind has an absolutely narcotic effect, the one feeding off and increasing the intensity of the other. ¡Viva la pasión!
Was totally with you until your fourth sentence. Saying that a woman’s being hot (no quotation marks needed) becomes irrelevant after a certain point is more than a little disingenuous for a man genuinely attracted to women to say. If anything I would that a stong attraction to a woman’s looks and her mind has an absolutely narcotic effect, the one feeding off and increasing the intensity of the other. ¡Viva la pasión!
Baddiel is wrong, or at least incapable in some way.
There is absolutely no contradiction between appreciating the female form and respecting their minds. I’m sure there’s plenty of males who can’t quite manage that, and i pity them. In fact, there’s nothing more sexy than a woman who can maintain an intelligent conversation, with confidence. If she’s “hot” that somehow becomes irrelevant, as much as it becomes irrelevant if she’s not.
On the other hand, a “hot” female who can’t maintain such a conversation soon starts to become ‘hard work’. (Much depends, of course, on chemistry.)
The author of this piece is therefore remiss in considering this possibility. It’s what she’d like to see happen, but i can fully understand why she’s not experienced it, if Baddiel is typical of most males. I wouldn’t know… i much prefer talking to women.
OK, that’s enough about David Baddiel. Now, what about Nina Power – feminist, philosopher, writer, academic, lecturer, campaiger. In short a pillar of the 21st century left-leaning thinkery – on a mission to save men (at least Western men) from being condemned by the feminist establishment as toxic.
Her remedy for the ‘man problem’, it seems, is for both men and women to devise or rediscover ways of being good citizens and good human beings because we are all dependent on one another. Good luck with that!
OK, that’s enough about David Baddiel. Now, what about Nina Power – feminist, philosopher, writer, academic, lecturer, campaiger. In short a pillar of the 21st century left-leaning thinkery – on a mission to save men (at least Western men) from being condemned by the feminist establishment as toxic.
Her remedy for the ‘man problem’, it seems, is for both men and women to devise or rediscover ways of being good citizens and good human beings because we are all dependent on one another. Good luck with that!
David Baddiel brought blackface back onto British television after a good decade, and he gave it an extra decade of life. But the world moves on, and even Baddiel’s old mates from football are having none of it. So now he accuses them of “trolling” him due to “white guilt”. He calls them, “That enemy. They’re white, heterosexual men, desperately trying to show solidarity, as they see it, with black people.” He knows that it is over. We are within sight of getting rid of this public nuisance once and for all.
A ‘final’ solution, David?
He doesn’t know what the Talmud is.
Baddiel has been in two comedy partnerships, and in both cases the other bloke has been the funny one. For many years, he hardly appeared except as a guest on one of Frank Skinner’s shows. In his late fifties, he wants to reinvent himself as a public intellectual by taking up a cause that placed him beyond criticism. He has therefore had to go through the motions of apologising in person to Jason Lee. Even then, though, he still managed to present himself as somehow the victim.
If Jason Lee wasn’t so useless at football they couldn’t have made the sketches about him. None of them mentioned his skin colour, just the fact he couldn’t score in a brothel
And his haircut. But it was a very silly haircut.
“He’s got a pineapple,
on his head!”
Fans were singing that long before Baddiel and Skinner picked up on it. They were singing much worse things about David Beckham and his wife.
Yeah I know, that’s why I love football
Yeah I know, that’s why I love football
Fans were singing that long before Baddiel and Skinner picked up on it. They were singing much worse things about David Beckham and his wife.
“He’s got a pineapple,
on his head!”
Baddiel blacked up. The Nineties audience was audibly shocked, but it brought back blackface after at least a decade, and gave it an extra decade of life.
You must have watched a different programme to me then, I only ever heard the audience laughing and I was laughing along with them.
It wasn’t exactly the black and white minstrels or love thy neighbour was it!
It’s on YouTube.
Is it? I might go watch it again then, I feel like a good laugh
Is it? I might go watch it again then, I feel like a good laugh
It’s on YouTube.
You must have watched a different programme to me then, I only ever heard the audience laughing and I was laughing along with them.
It wasn’t exactly the black and white minstrels or love thy neighbour was it!
And his haircut. But it was a very silly haircut.
Baddiel blacked up. The Nineties audience was audibly shocked, but it brought back blackface after at least a decade, and gave it an extra decade of life.
If Jason Lee wasn’t so useless at football they couldn’t have made the sketches about him. None of them mentioned his skin colour, just the fact he couldn’t score in a brothel
He doesn’t know what the Talmud is.
Baddiel has been in two comedy partnerships, and in both cases the other bloke has been the funny one. For many years, he hardly appeared except as a guest on one of Frank Skinner’s shows. In his late fifties, he wants to reinvent himself as a public intellectual by taking up a cause that placed him beyond criticism. He has therefore had to go through the motions of apologising in person to Jason Lee. Even then, though, he still managed to present himself as somehow the victim.
A ‘final’ solution, David?
David Baddiel brought blackface back onto British television after a good decade, and he gave it an extra decade of life. But the world moves on, and even Baddiel’s old mates from football are having none of it. So now he accuses them of “trolling” him due to “white guilt”. He calls them, “That enemy. They’re white, heterosexual men, desperately trying to show solidarity, as they see it, with black people.” He knows that it is over. We are within sight of getting rid of this public nuisance once and for all.
Islam spotted this problem too, and came up with a rather crude solution – full purdah. I spent 13 years in Saudi Arabia occasionally chatting with women so dressed and it worked a treat, all mind and no body. However, here in the West, “we have to train ourselves” … “we can be disciplined, and get our sense, and priorities in order” … “see a fellow human being as a soul with her own integrity”. Yes but … being victims of evolution by natural selection that is very, very difficult and Baddiel is spot on: it will take another few millennia before the ‘male gaze’ becomes extinct and we evolve into Mr Spocks.
Islam spotted this problem too, and came up with a rather crude solution – full purdah. I spent 13 years in Saudi Arabia occasionally chatting with women so dressed and it worked a treat, all mind and no body. However, here in the West, “we have to train ourselves” … “we can be disciplined, and get our sense, and priorities in order” … “see a fellow human being as a soul with her own integrity”. Yes but … being victims of evolution by natural selection that is very, very difficult and Baddiel is spot on: it will take another few millennia before the ‘male gaze’ becomes extinct and we evolve into Mr Spocks.
Appearance, sex, race, age are all distractions. In a future better world, communications between people will be transmitted by electronic text, with only a number to indicate the source.
Appearance, sex, race, age are all distractions. In a future better world, communications between people will be transmitted by electronic text, with only a number to indicate the source.
All I can really say is: Alice Roberts!!
All I can really say is: Alice Roberts!!
If there were no male gaze there would be no reason for women to make themselves attractive to men. The first victims would be the cosmetic and fashion industries and at the last the mirror.
If there were no male gaze there would be no reason for women to make themselves attractive to men. The first victims would be the cosmetic and fashion industries and at the last the mirror.
….We need to look, they need to be seen. And?… Duh……
….We need to look, they need to be seen. And?… Duh……
Oh, brother. Consciousness is always, implicitly or explicitly, a consciousness of objects, whether those objects are (supposedly) material things, literary creations, numbers, abstractions, dream landscapes, sensations, and everything else that comes to our attention. As Husserl pointed out, if you empty consciousness of its objects there’s literally nothing left over, a theme Sartre took up and ran with in Being and Nothingness (literally, no-THING-ness), and Jaspers explored further in his idea of the Comprehensive. Male and female alike, we’re incarnated in the world both as conscious beings and as objects for others’ attention, and however strange this bifurcated ontology seems to us we can never escape it. Everything we’re aware of is an object for us, including people; and while we can infer that other people are quite likely conscious, just as we are, that inference is all we’ve got: we can never confirm the supposition directly by experiencing someone else’s consciousness (hence, Aldous Huxley calling people ‘island universes’–when a person dies, a universe dies; and Nietzsche saying, ‘In the final analysis we experience only ourselves’).
So, sorry, women… you’ll always be objects for me; but it would be silly to feel demeaned by the fact, given that I’m every bit as much of an object for you. Apologizing for finding you aesthetically pleasing would be equally absurd, since I’m biologically hard-wired to do so. In any event, if no one ever found you aesthetically pleasing, wouldn’t that be rather sad? Is being thought no more attractive than a window shade or a toaster really the niche today’s women aspire to occupy in the consciousness of others? If so, why do most of them self-present in life the way they do? Why bother investing in makeup, and dressing in ways that leave no doubt what we’re looking at is female? Why not just go around in sacks–I’m sure they’re perfectly comfortable.
I should add that it isn’t just women’s physical attributes I find attractive. I prize friendliness, honesty, competence, intelligence, etc., just as much in women as in men, and fortunately my wife still manifests all these things to my grateful consciousness 40+ years into our marriage. If she minds my admiring gaze falling on her, she’s never let on.
Oh, brother. Consciousness is always, implicitly or explicitly, a consciousness of objects, whether those objects are (supposedly) material things, literary creations, numbers, abstractions, dream landscapes, sensations, and everything else that comes to our attention. As Husserl pointed out, if you empty consciousness of its objects there’s literally nothing left over, a theme Sartre took up and ran with in Being and Nothingness (literally, no-THING-ness), and Jaspers explored further in his idea of the Comprehensive. Male and female alike, we’re incarnated in the world both as conscious beings and as objects for others’ attention, and however strange this bifurcated ontology seems to us we can never escape it. Everything we’re aware of is an object for us, including people; and while we can infer that other people are quite likely conscious, just as we are, that inference is all we’ve got: we can never confirm the supposition directly by experiencing someone else’s consciousness (hence, Aldous Huxley calling people ‘island universes’–when a person dies, a universe dies; and Nietzsche saying, ‘In the final analysis we experience only ourselves’).
So, sorry, women… you’ll always be objects for me; but it would be silly to feel demeaned by the fact, given that I’m every bit as much of an object for you. Apologizing for finding you aesthetically pleasing would be equally absurd, since I’m biologically hard-wired to do so. In any event, if no one ever found you aesthetically pleasing, wouldn’t that be rather sad? Is being thought no more attractive than a window shade or a toaster really the niche today’s women aspire to occupy in the consciousness of others? If so, why do most of them self-present in life the way they do? Why bother investing in makeup, and dressing in ways that leave no doubt what we’re looking at is female? Why not just go around in sacks–I’m sure they’re perfectly comfortable.
I should add that it isn’t just women’s physical attributes I find attractive. I prize friendliness, honesty, competence, intelligence, etc., just as much in women as in men, and fortunately my wife still manifests all these things to my grateful consciousness 40+ years into our marriage. If she minds my admiring gaze falling on her, she’s never let on.
Is the ever supremely self-important Baddiel merely stating the bleeding obvious here?
How did we get this far as a civilisation with only one of him?
How did we get this far as a civilisation with only one of him?
Is the ever supremely self-important Baddiel merely stating the bleeding obvious here?
Manners maketh man or woman. The manner in which one shows oneself is the manner in which one is judged. William of Wykeham 1382.
Manners maketh man or woman. The manner in which one shows oneself is the manner in which one is judged. William of Wykeham 1382.
Not to mention the female gaze…
If Power is reporting on Baddiel correctly then he is being rather crass, though in ludicrously over sexualised culture it’s not surprising.It’s not that men don’t have a greater visual interest in women than vice versa, they do, probably for good evolutionary reasons. It’s just a question of, are we respecting them as persons or more as sex objects – a good rule of thumb is, how do we want other men to look at our wives, girl friends etc. Appreciation, fine but how hot she is, hardly. That way we all get on and enjoy each other, men and women, a bit more rather than the current sourness. PS Could Power also have a word for the sillier girls who instead of dressing in a stylish,interesting and modest way, must be sexy. Dress like a slag and you’ll get a lecher.
ALL this, what was this article about misses that it was about nuance.
David Baddiel was sacked by the BBC in 2016 for a disgusting 6:30pm show on BBC Radio 4 that made fun of the Queen on her 90th birthday and referred to her vagina (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/oct/05/bbc-david-baddiel-queen-sex-life-radio-4-dont-make-me-laugh)>
I have zero respect for this cheap jack.
I would not force any woman to wear a Burka, but I also do understand why a society might decide to adopt that rule. So I support the existence of societies with such a rule. Then people can choose the society they prefer.
This is a joke presumably? Would those ‘societies’ happen to be the ones also denying women full citizenship rights? Choice, yeah right!
I am not a scholar of the middle East and Islam, but I am reliably told that the Burka is not rooted in the Koran (which requires only ‘modest dress’), but in the tradition of the Harem, where the concubines/wives were made to cover up their faces so as to preserve their ‘worth’ to the Harem owner.
Me neither but I know the veil is a good antidote to the sinister ‘male gaze.’ In Carry On Up The Khyber, nobody spotted that Roy Castle, Terry Scott and Charles Hawtrey were not in fact beautiful young women of the harem of The Khazi but were in fact brave members of her Majesty’s 2nd Foot and Mouth Regiment. And all they had to disguise themselves was a veil!
Veil up ladies, it’s for your own good.
Veil up ladies, it’s for your own good.
Me neither but I know the veil is a good antidote to the sinister ‘male gaze.’ In Carry On Up The Khyber, nobody spotted that Roy Castle, Terry Scott and Charles Hawtrey were not in fact beautiful young women of the harem of The Khazi but were in fact brave members of her Majesty’s 2nd Foot and Mouth Regiment. And all they had to disguise themselves was a veil!
And if they don’t go along, beat or flog them. To death if they insist on being uppity. You know, like in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other such paradises of human rights.
This is a joke presumably? Would those ‘societies’ happen to be the ones also denying women full citizenship rights? Choice, yeah right!
I am not a scholar of the middle East and Islam, but I am reliably told that the Burka is not rooted in the Koran (which requires only ‘modest dress’), but in the tradition of the Harem, where the concubines/wives were made to cover up their faces so as to preserve their ‘worth’ to the Harem owner.
And if they don’t go along, beat or flog them. To death if they insist on being uppity. You know, like in Iran, Saudi Arabia and other such paradises of human rights.
I would not force any woman to wear a Burka, but I also do understand why a society might decide to adopt that rule. So I support the existence of societies with such a rule. Then people can choose the society they prefer.