I've always hated cocky, bravado-drenched 'alpha' males....(although I have sometimes wondered if I'm just jealous). I don't think there's any doubting that Brand is one such. But there's an elephant in the #MeToo Feminist Room. Feminism cannot 'fess up to the fact that these Brand types are the babe magnets in the 'sexual marketplace'. #MeTooists somehow always manage avert their attention from this uncomfortable truth even though - in our digital age of copious online-dating statistics and evolutionary psychology research - it is a truth that is undeniable (at least as regards large numbers of young women). As I wrote recently: "Behaviour that sometimes gets labelled as ‘toxic’ is most typical of the kind of male to whom a very lot of women (and especially young women) are most sexually attracted - at least in the short term. The handsome (or sometimes not so handsome) bad guy always with a pretty girl in tow is the stuff of every tv soap opera ever made. Then there were “Oh you [delicious] brute!” fantasies of 19th century novelists like Edith Hull. And then there are the “more disconcerting research findings that men who use sexual coercion have more partners than men who do not.....[and men] ...high on Dark Triad traits are viewed as more attractive by women, are more likely to have consensual sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in sexual coercion.”" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired I'll shed no tears for Brand as he now faces the 'court of public opinion' but I would like to see his #MeToo-type journalist attackers - who manage to airbrush the above truths about female sexuality out of the story - take a hard look at themselves. I'm not holding my breath
I'm confused, though, by the final paragraphs. I agree that the Will Lloyd position is haughty and counterproductive. But the points you make in response to it - the £30 billion lost by Truss, and the long reign of the Etonians - draw attention to problems, indeed disasters, in society that have been perpetrated by the kind of people that the new breed of anti-establishment, just-asking-questions grifters typified by Brand tend to promote as authentic and anti-establishment. Obviously, that trend is even more advanced in the US than here, in the form of Trump, Musk, Tucker Carlson, etc. But it seems to have its feet well under the table here, too.
So, the question is, why do you think so many of the people whose lives have been genuinely damaged by the excesses and narcissism of, let's call it, the Eton--Mar a Lago axis, are so easily hoovered up by the Carlsons, Brands and (for that matter) Weinsteins of this world, who are doing nothing more than create baroque ideological cover for the very oligarchs and plutocrats who got us here in the first place?
Thanks for the comment, Charles. I think a lot of people feel like they’re getting a raw deal but they can’t quite put a finger on who or what it is they should blame. In the past - for all it’s flaws - you had a labour and trade union movement which at least had some material analysis of what was going wrong. It isn’t that simple of course but that’s a part of it I think. I also believe that today we act against this backdrop of the cult of the individual. Everything is atomised and the prospect of collective rebellion seems a bit hopeless and old fashioned. I think it’s relatively easy to flip that on its head and start believing that all of the world’s problems are caused by a clique of individuals (rather than systems and material interests). It isn’t hard to see how conspiracies can flow from this idea that a few nefarious people run the world. Of course, I’m still thinking this stuff through so would be interested to hear your view.
Yes, that all seems fair to me. What someone needs to write a book about (maybe there's one out there) is what distinguishes the "elitists" who want to preserve the Republic, with all of its guardrails (and I'm talking generally - Rome as well as the US) and the "elitists" - in the world as it is now, a lot of tech and hedge-fund types - who are so good at spotting the opportunity to bring down the first lot of elitists in the name of "the people", and then remake the social order in their own image, or just according to their whims. Just a quirk of psychology, I guess. But the number of different kinds of people who would claim that their main objective is the preservation of capitalism/freedom etc., and yet at the same time view each other as incarnations of evil, is quite something.
Nice to know that when men rig the dating/casual sex game by playing at manipulation it's called being a predator but when women do it there's no term for it. Just being an independent free spirit.
All this is in the court of public but I'll wait for an actual criminal investigation and ruling to pass my judgement.
Especially after seeing on the internet and experiencing in real life women bashing men for folding quickly when told no. I know every man has that woman for whom he went beyond the no and that's what she wanted.
James, I may disagree, but respond because you make good argument, and people must be encouraged to view both sides, always. Consequently, I share your link.
I have personal experience of politicians and media, and that their smear campaign is impossible to survive without cost. I don't know Russell Brand so I give him the benefit of the doubt, partly because I want to applaud the few who change. We all grow up at different ages, and Brand seems to have taken longer but finally gotten there. Until we know for certain, either we support trial by Media or we don't.
Stupidity exists. It's a threat to truth. Worse are those who choose to be ignorant. Worse more are those who manipulate those types. There are real conspiracies. Fake conspiracies help real conspirators hide.
Covid is the topical example. There are valid questions regarding political opportunism, profiteering and tests. But the reptilian called David Ike stating that covid doesn't exist is plain nuts (and cruel).
A UK forced reeducation camp for flat-earthers and friends? Smallpox for anti-vaxxers? Death for Ike? If the justice and political system weren't so corrupt, I'd be tempted to say, "Yes".
Great piece of writing👏
Thanks Stephen.
Great article! One of the better I've seen on Brand.
This is a most Maimonidean article.
I've always hated cocky, bravado-drenched 'alpha' males....(although I have sometimes wondered if I'm just jealous). I don't think there's any doubting that Brand is one such. But there's an elephant in the #MeToo Feminist Room. Feminism cannot 'fess up to the fact that these Brand types are the babe magnets in the 'sexual marketplace'. #MeTooists somehow always manage avert their attention from this uncomfortable truth even though - in our digital age of copious online-dating statistics and evolutionary psychology research - it is a truth that is undeniable (at least as regards large numbers of young women). As I wrote recently: "Behaviour that sometimes gets labelled as ‘toxic’ is most typical of the kind of male to whom a very lot of women (and especially young women) are most sexually attracted - at least in the short term. The handsome (or sometimes not so handsome) bad guy always with a pretty girl in tow is the stuff of every tv soap opera ever made. Then there were “Oh you [delicious] brute!” fantasies of 19th century novelists like Edith Hull. And then there are the “more disconcerting research findings that men who use sexual coercion have more partners than men who do not.....[and men] ...high on Dark Triad traits are viewed as more attractive by women, are more likely to have consensual sexual partners, and are more likely to engage in sexual coercion.”" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired I'll shed no tears for Brand as he now faces the 'court of public opinion' but I would like to see his #MeToo-type journalist attackers - who manage to airbrush the above truths about female sexuality out of the story - take a hard look at themselves. I'm not holding my breath
Very interesting piece.
I'm confused, though, by the final paragraphs. I agree that the Will Lloyd position is haughty and counterproductive. But the points you make in response to it - the £30 billion lost by Truss, and the long reign of the Etonians - draw attention to problems, indeed disasters, in society that have been perpetrated by the kind of people that the new breed of anti-establishment, just-asking-questions grifters typified by Brand tend to promote as authentic and anti-establishment. Obviously, that trend is even more advanced in the US than here, in the form of Trump, Musk, Tucker Carlson, etc. But it seems to have its feet well under the table here, too.
So, the question is, why do you think so many of the people whose lives have been genuinely damaged by the excesses and narcissism of, let's call it, the Eton--Mar a Lago axis, are so easily hoovered up by the Carlsons, Brands and (for that matter) Weinsteins of this world, who are doing nothing more than create baroque ideological cover for the very oligarchs and plutocrats who got us here in the first place?
Thanks for the comment, Charles. I think a lot of people feel like they’re getting a raw deal but they can’t quite put a finger on who or what it is they should blame. In the past - for all it’s flaws - you had a labour and trade union movement which at least had some material analysis of what was going wrong. It isn’t that simple of course but that’s a part of it I think. I also believe that today we act against this backdrop of the cult of the individual. Everything is atomised and the prospect of collective rebellion seems a bit hopeless and old fashioned. I think it’s relatively easy to flip that on its head and start believing that all of the world’s problems are caused by a clique of individuals (rather than systems and material interests). It isn’t hard to see how conspiracies can flow from this idea that a few nefarious people run the world. Of course, I’m still thinking this stuff through so would be interested to hear your view.
Yes, that all seems fair to me. What someone needs to write a book about (maybe there's one out there) is what distinguishes the "elitists" who want to preserve the Republic, with all of its guardrails (and I'm talking generally - Rome as well as the US) and the "elitists" - in the world as it is now, a lot of tech and hedge-fund types - who are so good at spotting the opportunity to bring down the first lot of elitists in the name of "the people", and then remake the social order in their own image, or just according to their whims. Just a quirk of psychology, I guess. But the number of different kinds of people who would claim that their main objective is the preservation of capitalism/freedom etc., and yet at the same time view each other as incarnations of evil, is quite something.
Very good
Nice to know that when men rig the dating/casual sex game by playing at manipulation it's called being a predator but when women do it there's no term for it. Just being an independent free spirit.
All this is in the court of public but I'll wait for an actual criminal investigation and ruling to pass my judgement.
Especially after seeing on the internet and experiencing in real life women bashing men for folding quickly when told no. I know every man has that woman for whom he went beyond the no and that's what she wanted.
James, I may disagree, but respond because you make good argument, and people must be encouraged to view both sides, always. Consequently, I share your link.
I have personal experience of politicians and media, and that their smear campaign is impossible to survive without cost. I don't know Russell Brand so I give him the benefit of the doubt, partly because I want to applaud the few who change. We all grow up at different ages, and Brand seems to have taken longer but finally gotten there. Until we know for certain, either we support trial by Media or we don't.
Stupidity exists. It's a threat to truth. Worse are those who choose to be ignorant. Worse more are those who manipulate those types. There are real conspiracies. Fake conspiracies help real conspirators hide.
Covid is the topical example. There are valid questions regarding political opportunism, profiteering and tests. But the reptilian called David Ike stating that covid doesn't exist is plain nuts (and cruel).
A UK forced reeducation camp for flat-earthers and friends? Smallpox for anti-vaxxers? Death for Ike? If the justice and political system weren't so corrupt, I'd be tempted to say, "Yes".