Mel Gibson: racism isn’t even the half of it

It’s disturbing how easily Hollywood overlooks violence against women.

What an edifying week this has been for those of us who are female. I know it sometimes slips the mind of many, male and female alike, so let me take this opportunity to remind readers that females are more than half the human race. We're not a special-interest group, or a niche category.

But you wouldn't know it from the responses to a horrifying series of stories featuring violence against women that have dominated the news on both sides of the Atlantic over the past week. In ascending order of importance -- measured crudely in terms of numbers of victims and actual physical and psychological harm done -- let's begin with Mad Max. Mel Gibson has been dropped by his agents, and most of Hollywood, for his "racist rant".

It's good to know that Hollywood objects to racism. I trust that the rest of us do, too. What troubles me is that the racism, as disgusting as it was, was incidental to the purpose of Mel's alleged rant, but it's only the racism that anyone seems to care about.

The claim is that Gibson screamed at his then-girlfriend that the way she dressed meant that she deserved to be raped by a pack of "n----rs". The so-called "n-word" is so totemically powerful that no one will even print it, and its use has finally placed Gibson beyond the pale: his own agents issued a statement saying that no one in Hollywood would touch him with a 10-foot pole. Because of his racial attitudes.

But what about the (alleged) threats and assaults against his then girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, who claims that he broke two of her teeth, and attacked her while she was holding their baby? Those are mentioned in passing as "misogyny" or "domestic abuse". Objectionable, maybe, but not enough to end a Hollywood player's career.

Using a racist word is, on the evidence, a far greater social crime than a man physically assaulting his girlfriend, or telling her that she deserves to be gang-raped. How is this possible? Let's ask Roman Polanski.

If anyone is in doubt whether punching his girlfriend, or telling her she should be gang-banged, would have been sufficient to cause Gibson's downfall without the casual racism tossed in to underscore the threat, that person need only consider Hollywood's reaction to the US's attempt to extradite Polanski for a rape to which he has admitted. Polanski did indeed rape a 13-year-old girl, after drugging her, but has had a litany of excuses offered up by Hollywood stars -- far too many of whom are female (for shame, Tilda Swinton and Whoopi Goldberg) -- to excuse his conduct.

The most legally cogent of these, of course, is that he's an artist, which apparently gives him licence to sodomise children. Or maybe it's acceptable because it happened so long ago; in those days rape was probably fine, and if not, well, we've all forgotten about it by now.

Attitudes change, according to the novelist Robert Harris. Yes, of course, they do -- like racism, which used to be acceptable, and now it's not. Whereas raping girls used to be unacceptable, and now it is?

Alternatively, Polanski should be free because the victim wants to move on. Of course she does; that's why the state, and not individuals, prosecutes criminals, because it is supposed to be a question of impartial justice and the upholding of the rule of law. Polanski should be jailed to send the message that, as a society, we don't tolerate the drugging and sodomising of girls. Oh, except I forgot. Clearly we do. Especially if we're Switzerland, which cares so little about the rights of half its population that it didn't give them the right to vote until 1971.

Let me ask another rhetorical question while I'm at it. Does anyone think that if it had been a 13-year-old boy that Polanski had pleaded to guilty to raping, Hollywood would be defending the rape on the basis of passage of time? Rape doesn't have a statute of limitations for a reason: because it's one of the most serious crimes our culture recognises -- when it can be bothered to recognise it, that is.

Polanski told an interviewer that raping a girl was both negligible and admirable: "If I had killed somebody, it wouldn't have had so much appeal to the press, you see? But . . . fucking, you see . . . and the young girls. Judges want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone wants to fuck young girls!" The repentance is palpable, isn't it?

Anyone who thinks that Polanski's comparison of rape to murder was casual, or coincidental, should pause for a minute and consider the appalling reaction on the part of a terrifyingly large group of people to Raoul Moat's homicidal spree last week. A Facebook page called "RIP Raoul Moat You Legend" has nearly 30,000 people who have signed it and said they "like" it, as of the time of writing this.

When I logged on to the page, I found these representative messages, posted within the last few minutes:

R.I.P Raoul..!! I blame your ex..!! Little whore..!!"


If my mrs ever does to me what she did to Raoul i hope im brave enough to do a Moaty.

Thus a new expression enters the language: doing a Moaty, otherwise known as "bravely" attempting to murder women who have the unmitigated gall to try to end a relationship with someone who is, in fact, homicidal. How dare we?

All of these stories have a sickening common denominator: they are about men who think that it is permissible, even estimable, to attack women. And they are about the society that so concurs with this attitude that it doesn't even notice. Edifying, like I said.

Sarah Churchwell is the author of "The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe" (Granta Books, £18.99).

Subscription offer: Get 12 issues for just £12 PLUS a free copy of "The Idea of Justice" by Amartya Sen.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: George Osborne abandons his target

How will George Osborne close the deficit after his U-Turns? Answer: he won't, of course. 

“Good governments U-Turn, and U-Turn frequently.” That’s Andrew Adonis’ maxim, and George Osborne borrowed heavily from him today, delivering two big U-Turns, on tax credits and on police funding. There will be no cuts to tax credits or to the police.

The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that, in total, the government gave away £6.2 billion next year, more than half of which is the reverse to tax credits.

Osborne claims that he will still deliver his planned £12bn reduction in welfare. But, as I’ve written before, without cutting tax credits, it’s difficult to see how you can get £12bn out of the welfare bill. Here’s the OBR’s chart of welfare spending:

The government has already promised to protect child benefit and pension spending – in fact, it actually increased pensioner spending today. So all that’s left is tax credits. If the government is not going to cut them, where’s the £12bn come from?

A bit of clever accounting today got Osborne out of his hole. The Universal Credit, once it comes in in full, will replace tax credits anyway, allowing him to describe his U-Turn as a delay, not a full retreat. But the reality – as the Treasury has admitted privately for some time – is that the Universal Credit will never be wholly implemented. The pilot schemes – one of which, in Hammersmith, I have visited myself – are little more than Potemkin set-ups. Iain Duncan Smith’s Universal Credit will never be rolled out in full. The savings from switching from tax credits to Universal Credit will never materialise.

The £12bn is smaller, too, than it was this time last week. Instead of cutting £12bn from the welfare budget by 2017-8, the government will instead cut £12bn by the end of the parliament – a much smaller task.

That’s not to say that the cuts to departmental spending and welfare will be painless – far from it. Employment Support Allowance – what used to be called incapacity benefit and severe disablement benefit – will be cut down to the level of Jobseekers’ Allowance, while the government will erect further hurdles to claimants. Cuts to departmental spending will mean a further reduction in the numbers of public sector workers.  But it will be some way short of the reductions in welfare spending required to hit Osborne’s deficit reduction timetable.

So, where’s the money coming from? The answer is nowhere. What we'll instead get is five more years of the same: increasing household debt, austerity largely concentrated on the poorest, and yet more borrowing. As the last five years proved, the Conservatives don’t need to close the deficit to be re-elected. In fact, it may be that having the need to “finish the job” as a stick to beat Labour with actually helped the Tories in May. They have neither an economic imperative nor a political one to close the deficit. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.