Dutoit in the dock

[vinteuil]

While keeping an open mind…

... how many here are?


.

[Lat-Literal]

The news is depressingly full of this sort of thing, mostly because liberal society is having a crisis about consent. It is not surprising, for example, that it is the previously let-it-all-hang-out Sweden that is about to toughen its laws, or that it is so woolly-headed that it has dropped the case against Julian Assange, correctly in my opinion, or that its proposed increase in penalty for rape is from four years to a paltry five or that the five years will ludicrously apply both to adult victims and minors. The wave of accusations from women against men has immediately followed on from the ones about child abuse and it coincides with an increasing use of the law for redress by racial groups and other minorities. Unfortunately in every one of those situations it has been proven that the militant have been helped by the law at least as much as the genuinely vulnerable. But when it comes to gender specifically what is noticeable is that almost every news story involves men and women of wealth and influence, none of whom are hugely assisting the cause of ordinary, genuine child and adult victims.

I am constantly astonished by the extent to which powerful men have had either the time or inclination to pursue women in the ways specified during their careers. As one actor noted recently, they are almost always physically unattractive and that may well be a pertinent point. They deserve everything that is due to them and for several reasons. But equally, an unwillingness to speak out on the part of women who have an unusual ability to push themselves into show business and, in this case, also the law seems somewhat implausible. It has been very well known for decades that the vast majority of women and men who are mere mortals have been professionally advised when they are victims in domestic situations to say so, seek advice and immediately get out. In Hollywood 2017, and similar, it is as if Erin Pizzey - who had a high profile - never existed. One might note here the financial distinctions. In ordinary scenarios, action requires huge bravery with the potential long term risk of a home and basic subsistence. Elsewhere there is likely to be money, acquired with ambition, and also the emotional robustness to fight a court case. Those truly troubled or weakened are rarely able to face a court room, let alone air their stories through the international media.

Many powerful women will have genuine grievances but it needs to be comprehended how they have changed as the times have changed. I know of one woman who is in her late sixties and broadcasting daily on BBC Radio. Originally in theatre and soaps, she recalls how a bit of slap and tickle was as a matter of course to be expected at the back of every unimpressive, not especially lucrative, stage. It was an extension of the music hall way, on rare occasions it was prompted or managed by pretend diversionary flirting, but most often it was countered by a knee in the groin. Nothing more was needed to be said or done and many went home to their spouses. No, it wasn't ideal but these were conservative times when a "standard" way was clear but also theatre life was led as if on the fringes. Grey areas arose because people were on the road like those in a circus and the barriers were often fuzzier when it came to sharing beds. On the plus side, it was "colourful". On the minus, it did lead to the kinds of aggravation as outlined and the need for individuals to take the law into their own hands. Generally it was considered a spat when it was resisted effectively. It was a very long way from the showy, bankrolled, power dialogue of today. None of the parties had much power.

The situation changed in the sixties. Everyone started leaping into bed with everyone else when they felt like it. Often it was for personal advantage, especially when big money and fame were at stake. It was believed to be liberation - Jowell, Harman etc - until half a century later when some of the women and men who espoused it realised that with hindsight they had been cheated. Regretting what occurred, they looked back to the ways it had worked at its peak in the 1980s and in many cases chose to reframe it as victimhood. And crucially, what has changed in the past three years is the resistance to consent in democratic frameworks and with it the very many lies. That really is underpinning the current crisis. Election and referendum outcomes are no longer accepted as consensual ways forward. The one in Crimea, for example. Accusations are then made about political interference with no substance to back it up. That Conservatives and Brexiteers should moan about imaginary interference by a foreign party when there was a Conservative victory and a vote for leaving Europe beggars belief but that is what happens when conflict is internal. How to square the not wanting to be in bed with Hillary Clinton and her pro EU pals and yet wanting to be as they aren't Trump.

[Once Was 4]

... how many here are?


.

How far back do we go and where is the line drawn between unpleasant behavior and abuse?

Being now 70 I was educated in the 50s and early 60s by teachers who used personal abuse as a teaching aid. These days it would be regarded as 'emotional abuse'; and it did not stop at that: I still hear people of my generation talking about how their teachers had an unerring aim when throwing a wooden-backed blackboard duster - I was on the receiving end of a few! I was speaking to a friend recently, now in his 80s and a retired Deputy Headmaster. A friendly, affable, highly intelligent and witty man, he told me with relish how he used to deal with 'mouthy' pupils. All this was just how teachers were then: these days it would have led to assault charges.

As a music student in Manchester I, and all my colleagues who saw their futures in orchestras, were subject to emotional abuse from a conductor who has been mentioned several times in this group. I do not know of any examples of him physically assaulting female students but he certainly made comments to them which, these days, would have got him sacked - quite rightly.

And yes, we had a female teacher who was reputed to have her way with male students as well. All wrong.

We can only be glad that, these days, people will speak out and be taken seriously. But also, people are innocent until proved guilty; I know of one musician who was imprisoned for acts which his accusers later admitted were fabricated - after he died in prison.

[Lat-Literal]

How far back do we go and where is the line drawn between unpleasant behavior and abuse?

Being now 70 I was educated in the 50s and early 60s by teachers who used personal abuse as a teaching aid. These days it would be regarded as 'emotional abuse'; and it did not stop at that: I still hear people of my generation talking about how their teachers had an unerring aim when throwing a wooden-backed blackboard duster - I was on the receiving end of a few! I was speaking to a friend recently, now in his 80s and a retired Deputy Headmaster. A friendly, affable, highly intelligent and witty man, he told me with relish how he used to deal with 'mouthy' pupils. All this was just how teachers were then: these days it would have led to assault charges.

As a music student in Manchester I, and all my colleagues who saw their futures in orchestras, were subject to emotional abuse from a conductor who has been mentioned several times in this group. I do not know of any examples of him physically assaulting female students but he certainly made comments to them which, these days, would have got him sacked - quite rightly.

And yes, we had a female teacher who was reputed to have her way with male students as well. All wrong.

We can only be glad that, these days, people will speak out and be taken seriously. But also, people are innocent until proved guilty; I know of one musician who was imprisoned for acts which his accusers later admitted were fabricated - after he died in prison.

Yes, flying dusters and chalk and most memorably in the woodwork room the application to more than one pupil's fingers of a knife-edged metal ruler so that they bled profusely.

Circa 1976.

I was reminded of it less than a decade ago by an ex-pupil who I bumped into on a bus.

"What a sadist" we said of that particular teacher - and then sort of awkwardly laughed.

[BBMmk2]

Hiya Dark Bloom,

Hey, be careful, singling out the Catholic Church is unfair! Historical sex abuse allegations involve lots of other organisations: Football Coaching, Scouting, Boy's Choirs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Swimming Coaching, BBC, Local Authority Children's Homes, Church of England and Max Clifford are just a few examples from recent years that spring to mind.

Thanks for saving me to post about this!

[Serial_Apologist]

Hiya Dark Bloom,

Hey, be careful, singling out the Catholic Church is unfair! Historical sex abuse allegations involve lots of other organisations: Football Coaching, Scouting, Boy's Choirs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Swimming Coaching, BBC, Local Authority Children's Homes, Church of England and Max Clifford are just a few examples from recent years that spring to mind.

I have to say that organisations that either purport to be the highest moral exemplars or are the final upholders of the law should be considered as doubly guilty when it comes to cover-ups of this kind, so I'm all for singling them out.

[Serial_Apologist]

The star system, driven by the power of the media, is an important factor in why people develop predatory behaviour, in my view.

Trial by media is potentially dangerous and a blunt weapon, but failures by the proper authorities sometimes, ( often? ) leave room for some necessary work by the media.

I wold like to coin a new word for such press exposés: predatorials.

[Serial_Apologist]

The situation changed in the sixties. Everyone started leaping into bed with everyone else when they felt like it. Often it was for personal advantage, especially when big money and fame were at stake. It was believed to be liberation - Jowell, Harman etc - until half a century later when some of the women and men who espoused it realised that with hindsight they had been cheated. Regretting what occurred, they looked back to the ways it had worked at its peak in the 1980s and in many cases chose to reframe it as victimhood.

That's unfair on feminists, who were quick to point out that women on the whole were not consulted as to their treatment in the so-called "sexual revolution".

[Lat-Literal]

I wold like to coin a new word for such press exposés: predatorials.

Yes - although "press", informative as it is as a word, looks like something that was in the ark. If newspapers were "the press", what does that make 24 hour news and other media, way beyond all we ever needed to win two world wars? The push. Even I can recall the days when some would say "if you don't like it, just turn off". But "just turn off" would be better written in this era as "just fly to the moon" because there is no escaping its infliction/affliction even in the average nunnery. Some once considered the J Kyle Show to be useful open speech. Others asked "where do they manage to find these people?" but not any longer because with it the behaviour proliferates. If anyone doubts it, consider the growth of tattoos.

That's unfair on feminists, who were quick to point out that women on the whole were not consulted as to their treatment in the so-called "sexual revolution".

Yes, ok, to certain kinds of feminists but not to all kinds of feminists - I think what you are talking about there is the first wave of post 1960s feminists who were very much on the fringes. The women who were bra burning and not celebrating pornography were hardly in large numbers compared with those who were celebrating, along with most men, the pill. Incidentally, I've always had an idealistic view of Woodstock but the sexual aspect hasn't been a part of it. Liberalism as no conflict - peace and love etc - not that even that was real.

I happen to believe that sex is designed more for creationism than being creative in light of scientific intervention. It isn't something I would insist upon in respect of other people. But I do feel strongly that society lost a great deal when that perspective could only be tolerated in religious cranks. It meant that it was wholly forbidden among anyone who wasn't religious. That, in turn, enabled it to be given across to the "strong" and "beautiful" with all of the scope for power games that entails. Before technical advance, it was all smaller/samier/socialist.

[Serial_Apologist]

Yes, ok, to certain kinds of feminists but not to all kinds of feminists - I think what you are talking about there is the first wave of post 1960s feminists who were very much on the fringes. The women who were bra burning and not celebrating pornography were hardly in large numbers compared with those who were celebrating, along with most men, the pill. Incidentally, I've always had an idealistic view of Woodstock but the sexual aspect hasn't been a part of it. Liberalism as no conflict - peace and love etc - not that even that was real.

The women who mistook the pill for sexual liberation were hardly femininsts though, I wouldn't have thought, Lat.

I happen to believe that sex is designed more for creationism than being creative in light of scientific intervention. It isn't something I would insist upon in respect of other people. But I do feel strongly that society lost a great deal when that perspective could only be tolerated in religious cranks. It meant that it was wholly forbidden among anyone who wasn't religious. That, in turn, enabled it to be given across to the "strong" and "beautiful" with all of the scope for power games that entails. Before technical advance, it was all smaller/samier/socialist.

If I understand you correctly, that prescription would have led to an awful lot of unwanted babies though! And who decides on what constitutes "strength" and "beauty"? These qualities change from age to age.

[Lat-Literal]

The women who mistook the pill for sexual liberation were hardly femininsts though, I wouldn't have thought, Lat.

If I understand you correctly, that prescription would have led to an awful lot of unwanted babies though! And who decides on what constitutes "strength" and "beauty"? These qualities change from age to age.

I wasn't proposing the reversal of scientific advances or lamenting them but rather questioning the culture of freedom which accompanied them. It made them into a game changer where the accent on producing children was replaced by one based on adult egos. Notions of attractiveness were ratcheted up. That didn't do those who were perceived as attractive or those who were perceived as unattractive a lot of good just as it isn't especially helpful for anyone to be very rich or very poor. Among the former, an instability often replaced stable frameworks. Ultimately many would seek stability, almost without knowing it was that they were doing, in the surrogate parent that is any legal system while ludicrously claiming to have acquired personal power. Extraordinarily and very regrettably, the only people who have stood against it all are those who have a fundamental and often extreme belief in God. The latter in my humble opinion just muddy the water further by being so deeply unattractive in their attitudes that the polar opposite goes without challenge and is the chosen norm.

[Richard Barrett]

What's with all the hand-wringing? Abuse of power of this kind is wrong, it's always been wrong, even when it was tolerated by many. Whenever news of this kind comes out there are those who immediately jump to questioning the credibility of women who have in many cases taken many years and much painful soul-searching to find the courage to speak out. There will be a lot more such news in the coming time. Get used to it!

[Barbirollians]

Whilst I have cautioned on here before for the need to remember that all are innocent until proven guilty the allegations against Dutoit are serious and apparently compelling.

I think associating the abuse of power with feminism or women embracing sexual freedom is pretty disgraceful and a variation on the theme of “ she was asking for it by wearing a short skirt” variety .

[french frank]

I think associating the abuse of power with feminism or women embracing sexual freedom is pretty disgraceful and a variation on the theme of “ she was asking for it by wearing a short skirt” variety .

It does kind of overlook the fact that men have always had a good deal of 'sexual freedom' … Is it 'feminism' for women to want the same freedoms as men? Statistically (I am subject to be corrected here) it has overwhelmingly been men abusing their power, just as it has historically been men who have held the positions of power. Is it 'feminism' to feel that that should not be the invariable case?

[Conchis]

Leaving aside the politics of the subject (if that's possible) for a moment.....Dutoit and Levine are both men at the end of their careers, both financially secure and with a relatively short lifespan left ahead of them. Aside from being consigned to obloquy for the (possilbly) brief period remaining to them, how damaging can these charges (if true) prove?

Lest we forget, these are two of the most-recorded condctors in history....and Dutoit was a big seller in his day (his prime at the ONdeM coincided with the digital era's high summer). Recordings by both have littered the second-hand market for many years but I've not noticed an upsurge in donations since the charges were announced.