Julie Burchill on A Good Read (R4 today)

[Flosshilde]

But if you can find me one thread anywhere on this forum where readers are invited to censure a man, any man, for his inadequacy as a husband and father, I'll take your charge seriously.

Until then, not.

CAn you point to any examples among the people that have been discussed?

[jean]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you challenging me to find, among all the men who've been discussed on this forum, any whose abandonment of their children has gone unmentioned?

[Bryn]

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Are you challenging me to find, among all the men who've been discussed on this forum, any whose abandonment of their children has gone unmentioned?

That's how I read Flosshilde's question. I can't off-hand think of any. However, other relationship associated negative behaviour of men discussed here include that by Robert King, Lully and Gesualdo.

[jean]

As I remember, in Robert King's case what was being discussed was whether a criminal conviction for sexual offences should stand in the way of his continued appreciation as a musician. That's what the thread was about.

I can't remember exactly why Gesualdo's personal life was being discussed, but he didn't just leave his wife, he murdered her. Though as it turned out that was all right, because the conventions of the time and place demanded it.

I don't think Julie Burchill's offence can be compared with either of those.

[Flosshilde]

Is it sexist to comment on JB's relationship with her children? I don't think so - it's a fact. I don't know anything, or enough, about any of the men discussed in other threads to say whether they had walked out on their children. If I did, & felt that it added to the picture of who they were I would probably mention it. I'm not saying JB = bad unknown men = OK. I came across the article that featured the interview with her first son when I looked for confirmation of my memory that she had been married to Tony Parsons, & thought it was an additional element in a picture of someone who, by all accounts, is not a particularly pleasant person. She clearly doesn't like children (her own, at least - I don't know about other people's); why she had a second child goodness only knows. My original post was in response to someone asking who she is, not as a comment about her ability as a critic.

[jean]

You did go on about it though, didn't you? And made the easy assumption that in these days of 100% effective contraception, it's impossible to have children you don't really want.

Teamsaint's first post on this thread is a more balanced assessment.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Is it sexist to comment on JB's relationship with her children? I don't think so - it's a fact. I don't know anything, or enough, about any of the men discussed in other threads to say whether they had walked out on their children.

Isn't this the point jean is making, Flossie? How come we know about JB's mothering skills (or lack of them)?

Or, put another way, why is it well-known that the only parenting histories that seem to be made public are those of women? Why should defects [or virtues] as a mother be considered more relevant, or more interesting, or more "significant" in public discussions of "personalities" than defects/virtues as a father? Not criticising you (or Bryn), here: I share your dislike of Ms Burchall's work and the way she promotes it - but such considerations (which wallow in double standards) still seem to be taken as relevant in "media" attitudes.

[jean]

Yes, that is the point I'm making.

Thank you for putting it so well.

[Bryn]

You did go on about it though, didn't you? And made the easy assumption that in these days of 100% effective contraception, it's impossible to have children you don't really want.

Teamsaint's first post on this thread is a more balanced assessment.

An easy assumption that she tried to avoid pregnancy but failed? We're talking mid-'80s here, are we not. Free condoms (principally as HIV inhibitors) were all the rage, were they not? In addition, a wide range of other effective contraceptive methods were readily available.

[jean]

Only a man could have written that.

[Bryn]

Only a man could have written that.

Why so? It puts a very considerable part of the responsibility on the young Tony. As it happens, at that time I was involved in promoting the use of condoms (again, principally as HIV inhibitors).

[jean]

Why? Because I'm not assigning responsibility, I'm pointing out that no method of contraception (except for sterilisation) can be guaranteed 100% effective.

Most women know this.

[Bryn]

I refer you back to the first sentence of #54, in response to the "easy assumption" you ascribes to "men" in #53.

A similarly easy, but surely wrong, assumption would be that your second paragraph, "Most women know this.", suggests "so don't bother with it, and trust to luck". The ascribing of "easy assumptions" does not forward discussion of the issues involved.

[jean]

I didn't ascribe anything to "men" in my #53.

I was replying to this:

...I think that in JB's case she comes across as not wanting to have the child in the first place so one wonders why she did...

That really does assume (doesn't it?) that it is very easy to ensure that you do not have a child you don't want.

[Bryn]

I didn't ascribe anything to "men" in my #53.

I was replying to this:


That really does assume (doesn't it?) that it is very easy to ensure that you do not have a child you don't want.

Presumably she was at least aware that the introduction of viable semen into the vicinity of her cervix did hold considerable potential for a child to be produced. I thus find Flosshilde's wondering quite reasonable. Not only the use of condoms, but a whole range of safer sex procedures were being widely promoted in that era. I consider it entirely reasonable to wonder why the young adults, Tony and Julie, did not heed the strongly promoted advice of that time, especially if Ms. Burchill did not want to risk pregnancy.