On the UK TV channel GBNews on Tuesday night, former actor Laurence Fox asked, speaking of left-wing journalist Ava Evans, “who’d want to shag that?”
Laurence Fox just did a whole speech on GB News on why men apparently won’t shag me ? pic.twitter.com/XoQD0DUQVm
— Ava-Santina (@AvaSantina) September 26, 2023
“Show me a single self-respecting man” said Fox, “that would like to climb into bed with that woman ever, ever, who wasn’t an incel.”
In the aftermath of those comments, for which Fox has been indefinitely suspended from GBNews, some were quick to point out that Ms Evans is, and has been, no saint herself. Indeed, the segment to which Fox was contributing related to an earlier incident that same day in which Ms Evans had appeared to dismiss male suicide as relatively unimportant, and she had previously opined that she was relatively unworried if men were living in fear of false rape claims, on the basis that such fears might make all men behave slightly better. If he is a misogynist, then she has certainly displayed, from time to time, tendencies that might make one think her his opposite.
None of that matters.
For one thing, regardless of what Ms Evans has, or has not said in the past, none of it has been so crass or indecent as to publicly assign somebody else’s worth in purely sexual terms. People have intrinsic value and moral worth regardless of whether you might like to “shag” them. Indeed, Christian conservatives would argue that it is precisely because they have moral worth that you shouldn’t reduce people to mere sex objects. On that, they are right. Making a stupid and offensive comment about men as a group is not the same as personalising somebody’s appearance and sex appeal to dismiss something they’ve said. It’s a jerk move.
More than that, though, it displays a wider inclination that I’ve been wanting to write about for some time: a disturbing tendency by some on the populist right to mistake causing great offence for accomplishing something useful. Call it “own-the-libs-ism”.
If you were to sum up what is generally referred to as “cancel culture”, it might be described as the idea that in modern society, it is not permitted to cause offence to certain groups. Thus, if you are perceived, a la George Hook, to have offended women as a group, you must be punished. The same applied to Kevin Myers, with Jewish people. We see it all the time with efforts to have public meetings cancelled, or venues pull out of events, on the basis that the event might be “offensive” to somebody.
In response, the natural instinct of a sensible person is to say that there is no right not to be offended, and that the right to offend somebody is central to a society where speech and debate is free and open. Many political arguments will be offensive: It is not possible, for example, to discuss crime rates in the traveller community without risking offence to somebody. It seems barely possible to discuss the transgender issue without offending somebody. Offence by itself should not be a barrier to having an important debate.
And this protection of feelings only runs in one direction: Few people seem to be worried, for example, if something offends a devout Christian. You can say (as Ms Evans proves) basically whatever you want about white men.
The trouble is, simply, that for some on the populist right, the response to “thou shalt not cause offence” has been to make causing offence an end goal in its own right. As if the reaction of howling, upset progressives is proof positive that some kind of blow for freedom has been struck – when often times, you just look like an ass.
It is often said, but usually when lecturing the left, that rights come with responsibilities. We are entrusted with “rights” in society because of the common acceptance that we are all reasonable people who can be trusted to use those rights responsibly. This is as true of the right to free speech as it is of any other right. Good, responsible citizens do not go around upsetting their fellow citizens on purpose.
That’s what assholes do. And if you want to persuade the public, it’s a bad idea to be the asshole in any conversation.
Unfortunately though, social media tends to reward controversy, which incentivises people not to have moderate “takes”, but instead to express the most loud and controversial ideas they can think of, because the fury of “the other side” is cited to their own followers as proof positive that they’re on the right track. In turn, that acclaim and engagement encourages others (usually, though not always, young men) to follow suit. It turns into a cycle of self-marginalisation, creating angry little communities that are entirely divorced from the offline world.
Indecency cannot be an ideology. And “the other side are worse” cannot be an excuse for bad behaviour on your own side.
There’s too much of it, right now, amongst those who style themselves as opponents of “the regime”.
Whatever that means.