January 28, 2011
Gray and Keys vs. the New Social Legitimacy
Andy Gray and Richard Keys have been removed from their positions at Sky Sports. This follows their sexist remarks about (assistant) referee Sian Massey, the emergence of derogatory off-camera “banter”, and a frankly bizarre rant by Keys on TalkSport radio.
The first thing to note is that nobody forced Sky Sports to get rid of these two. Neither did anybody threaten to coerce Sky physically, economically, or via the power of the state. Rather, we now live in a society which (finally) deems it unacceptable for public figures to speak in such outrageously derogatory terms about women. Public figures caught doing so are exposed to extreme normative disdain, and this can in turn lead to purposeful abandonment by their backing-organisations or institutions.
This shows the power of values and legitimacy in collective human life and interaction. Sufficient collective moral disapproval can alone be enough to stimulate decisive action. Keys and Gray went beyond the bounds of contemporary “normative legitimacy”, and have paid the price.
This affair is likely to sit very ill with the right-wing commentariat, especially hysterical “opinion” spouters like Mad Mel and Richard Littlejohn, but also the less manically deranged. The angry (and nuttier) right typically reacts to such events by bemoaning the power of “sinister” interest “lobbies” that are “taking over” our society. More specifically, such “lobbies” are controlling even our very language and public morality. We can no longer say what we want – some words themselves are off-limits.
Now as it happens in some measure I agree with these rightwing commentators. Because it is true that our very language and public morality has undergone profound change with regards to the status of women in particular. As a result, certain people can no longer say whatever the hell they like without expecting serious repercussion. Some words themselves are, indeed, now off-limits (in public).
Where I differ from the right – aside from disdaining the naively simplistic view that profound social change is orchestrated by “sinister lobbies” – is in thinking that with regards to women’s equality, this is actually a jolly good thing. For the alternative is one that we know well from recent – and indeed, long-standing – historical precedent.
Certainly, there’s still a long way to go before genuine female equality is achieved in this country. But I would much rather live in a world where it is at least the publicly stated goal and norm. A world where ignorant bigoted male patriarchs cannot throw their weight around as part of a process that keeps half the population in the position of chastised, marginalised, denigrated second-class citizens.
Equally, I would much rather live in a world where offensive, degrading, intimidating, dismissive, undermining nastiness cannot be shrugged off as “just banter”. Because as anybody who has ever met a bully knows, the excuse that verbal intimidation is “just a joke” is one of the most effective means to marginalize and undermine a victim. Whether Gray and Keys realise it or not, when they claim that “it’s only banter”, they choke-off the voice of protest and close-down the means of escape for those objecting to what they are being subjected to, in turn manipulating them into accepting what they rightfully wish to resist.
So I welcome the new (and it is very new – well within my short lifetime) social norm of something like gender equality. A social norm that draws the bounds of legitimacy far narrower than what fat old Jurassic boors can cope with. And I make no qualms about that: because if the bounds of legitimacy weren’t being redrawn this way, the winners would be people like Keys and Gray. And frankly, I see no reason to prefer that world than the one we’re moving towards.
Thrasymachus said,
January 28, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Shrill whining by right-wing groups isn’t really about political correctness or similar issues about ‘restricting free speech’: as you point out, no one is either using or threatening to use illicit force when censuring these voices. The complaint is simply that these voices are being marginalized and widely deemed (at least by public society) unacceptable.
A morally astute (or even morally competent) citizenry should not gag evil with censorship, but bombard it with contempt and ridicule. Would that these present trends continue.
Peter said,
January 28, 2011 at 10:56 pm
I was scouring the papers during my break at work yesterday, to see if any of the tabloids would come out and support at least one aspect of Gray’s/Keys’ behaviour. What I found interesting was James Crisp’s opinion piece in Thursday’s Daily Sport, in which Gray’s attitudes were condemned as “old fashioned, unacceptable and outdated”. All of which is quite right, but I didn’t expect to read about it in the fucking Sport haha!
On the “it’s just banter” defence, I guess some people are running separate issues together. There were 3 incidents:
1. Saying the game’s gone mad for having female officials
2. Asking a female coworker to tuck your mic down your pants
3. The “did you smash it?” stuff
1 and 2 are straightforward sackable offences in my view. 2 especially, it’s pretty much sexual harassment if that’s how the woman takes it. I think I’d be sacked on the spot if I said something like that to a coworker and she complained (at the least, I’d be on my final warning).
3 is more difficult. I think lots of people, rightly or wrongly, would accept that that’s “just banter”. I’ll admit, me and my (male) colleagues come out with stuff like that, and at bar work I’ve done in the past it’s also par for the course. If I said stuff like that, and customers/female staff didn’t hear, I’d feel pretty hard-done by if I had to quit. So I’m OK with saying that Keys’ comments were perhaps rude and reflective of a not terrible progressive attitude towards women, but don’t merit formal disciplinary action (though he didn’t receive any, he quit supposedly of his own volition). But then, maybe it’s not implausible to say either that:
a) me and my coworkers are sexist pricks too or
b) Keys should be held to a higher standard, given the high profile and well-paid nature of his role. He’s a role model, I’m not and so on.
But yeah … it’s 1 and 2 that are the biggies for me.
john malpas said,
February 4, 2011 at 5:51 am
Why ‘sacking’ which turn the person virtually into a non person?
What is equal about that. Why are women so much more over represented in legislature than men.
So many laws redound to their advantaqge.
And it is progressive problem – you must not bad mouth homosexuals, trans genders etc.
You really think you are safe in this police state?