The inequality of sex

As we all shroud ourselves in grief at being unable to watch Russell Brand any more on terrestrial television stations, a few thoughts occur.

The first and most obvious is (once again) the presumption of guilt on the part of the entertainment industry, a business entirely devoid of morals and managed largely by coked-up hypocrites. Obviously, for most human beings our repulsion at the immediacy with which Brand has been cancelled by these dreadful people is challenged by our collective detestation of the man himself – yet another of those ‘comedians’ who never ever said anything funny and whose shtick was simply to reflect the zeitgeist of the age by showing off. But still. The allegation of rape and sexual assault is of course very serious – but before a man’s career is destroyed, a little more evidence wouldn’t go amiss. That is, unless we do what we are enjoined to do and believe that the woman – whatever woman, every woman – is always incapable of lying, or dissembling, or exaggerating or misconstruing.

I am not saying this happened in Brand’s case, because obviously I have no idea. Nor do the TV bosses. Brand denies the allegations – but then, he would, so we have an impasse. I have to say I prefer the notion that someone is innocent until proven guilty – but those days seem a very long way distant, don’t they? 

And then the inevitable pile-on, with more women coming forward, mostly alleging that Brand – gasp – wasn’t hugely chivalrous and seemed a bit manipulative. As ever, we are in the realm of liberal overreach. The #MeToo movement was motivated by genuinely wicked behaviour on the part of powerful men, such as Harvey Weinstein – but has subsequently deliquesced into a litany of gripes about questionable sexual etiquette.