Wednesday 3 November 2010

Julie Burchill: Hating Stephen Fry

It was perhaps inevitable that Julie Burchill would wade in and use her piss-poor column in The Independent to turn her guns on Stephen Fry.
'Gay man lays into women, fine. But when it's the other way around...'
She then promptly proceeds to lay into various gay men.
Poor Julie - verily she is the stupid person's idea of a newspaper columnist.
She's always all over the place, as per.
Is she a homophile or a homophobe, lesbian or straight, Stalinist or Thatcherite, Jew or non-believer?
Why, it's almost as if La Burchill is making it all up as she goes along.
Or drunk.
Or she gets someone else to write chunks of it.
So what is Julie saying today?
I'm damned if I know - why not have a go yourself?
Blah blah blah. Graham Norton is "hideous". Gok Wan is "vile".
But for why? "Gay men seem to think that because they sometimes call each other 'she', they are honorary women and thus can chuck the gynophobic abuse around like there's no tomorrow.
"But let one woman – the real kind, not the pretendy drag-queen kind – pass a comment on gay male sexuality, as the journalist Jan Moir did on the death of Stephen Gately, and seven sorts of hell break loose. Indeed, Fry himself spat: 'I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathsome and inhumane.'
"I quip, he bitches, she makes a full-on hate-attack upon a persecuted minority and I'm going to report you to the Press Complaints Commission, so there! This seems to be the current attitude of a certain section of gay men to the tricky business of name-calling, and I can't begin to express what half-witted hypocrites it makes them look. A word of warning, boyz – you're still men, even though you're gay. If you insist on telling women what they are or what they want, be prepared to be judged right back in return by us. BTW, this wasn't an attack – think of it as a warning nip. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the bitching."
Silly old cow.

5 comments:

  1. "Gay man lays into women, fine. But when it's the other way around..."

    But gay man didn't lay into women, you dozy cunt!

    ReplyDelete
  2. If anyone's collecting the set, here's a quite mild piece by Vanessa Feltz in the Express

    http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/209032

    ReplyDelete
  3. And Allison Pearson in the Telegraph -

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/allison-pearson/8108674/Women-like-to-feel-the-earth-move-but-preferably-not-in-a-ditch.html

    "Fry’s peculiar theories insult both men and women. Each sex has its share of both heedless hedonists and Horlicks drinkers. But just imagine what would happen if I filled this column with fanciful generalisations about gay sexuality. There would soon be a knock on the door from the Homophobic-Remarks Rapid Rebuttal Unit."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "But just imagine what would happen if I filled this column with fanciful generalisations about gay sexuality. There would soon be a knock on the door from the Homophobic-Remarks Rapid Rebuttal Unit."

    Generalisations are made about gay people in the media every fucking day. And that last sentence is a joke. Would a throw-away comment about gay people, intended with humour in the middle of an interview in a magazine that only gay people will read, be met with so much dreary pontification from the country's z-list columnists, would it make the front page of the Mail? It's bullshit. It's depressing how much veiled homophobia is being trotted out in response to this.
    Oh, how sensitive the homos and the PC brigade are, they wouldn't like it if we attacked all the gays, we wouldn't hear the end of it. And have I mentioned how they all hate women?
    No one attacked women. It was a stupid remark, but there's a huge difference between Stephen Fry overstating a vague truism in a gay magazine and god knows how many "journalists" attacking him in every national newspaper for several days and making sweeping generalisations about gay people and how overly sensitive we apparently are and how misgogynistic.
    Awful.

    ReplyDelete