Mary Whitehouse - Evil or Just Misguided?

[SimonT]

With the TV program "Filth - The mary Whitehouse Story" being shown this gave me the cracking idea of asking what you fine folks felt of her moral ideals.

So, as per the heading, did you think her moral crusades were just plain evil, or the actions of a misguided old fuddy duddy?

Whilst I believe both had something to do with her actions, I've actually voted for "evil" as I cannot condone anyone trying to ram their moral standards down other peoples throats. She was entitled to air her views certainly, but she always struck me as a megalamaniacal control freak.

[Grant]

She was pure filth that should have been burned at the stake.

[Vaughan]

I didn't see the show, so I don't know what it uncovered.

However, I think she was neither evil nor misguided - although I disgreed with her.

Mary Whitehouse, as far as I know, was a woman on conviction. She had a very strong belief that supported the things she did. What's more, she had the support of the majority of the public too. For us at the sharp end of the viewpoint we found her draconian, and not a little annoying. But does that make her evil?

Like too few on our side of the fence, she believed in something and went to war to get what she wanted. What do most suporters of horror and sex films do? Cower under the desks hoping their neighbors and friends don't find out what we're watching! We lost a lot of ground because we never had the representation, we never went to battle for what we wanted on the same scale. We whimpered, moaned, wrote an article or two and cried down the pub.

Know what I mean? It wasn't like her philosophy killed millions - Hitler, he was evil. Mary Whitehouse? She just represented something I don't like, and don't agree with. We all agree some things should be censored, but she drew the line far too high.

And looking back now, it's all a bit amusing. The Internet has crushed many a feeble argument, and this is such a case. A simple telephone line and ISP can render the whole arguement mute.

But the challenge is still there. How many of us, beyond posting on a message board, would really be willing to go and publicly defend pornography and horror films? And how many of us would be able to do it without trotting out the same old tired arguments of "catharthis" and "natural behaviours". Huh?

She was a forceful old girl, and she exercised her democratic options to the hilt. Almost won too. However, time hasn't been kind to her arguments. Evil? No. But a strong moral stance driving our society didn't start and end with her. It's just once facet.

It's not like I miss Mary or anything, but it seems to me than whenever we ned people to make a stand, it's those who want to restrict that make the loudest noises and pull the greatest crowds. And while that is the case, we'll never win.

[SimonT]

Mary Whitehouse, as far as I know, was a woman on conviction. She had a very strong belief that supported the things she did. What's more, she had the support of the majority of the public too. For us at the sharp end of the viewpoint we found her draconian, and not a little annoying. But does that make her evil?

I would strongly disagree that she had the support of the majority of the public. Certainly she had the backing of a large number of similarly outspoken moral prudes, but certainly not the majority of ordinary folk.

The woman was completely out of touch with reality (something Michael Grade even said) which was reflected in the fact the programmes she used to complain about drew millions of viewers each week. If the public were offended by these shows they wouldn't tune in to watch them now would they?

Know what I mean? It wasn't like her philosophy killed millions - Hitler, he was evil. Mary Whitehouse? She just represented something I don't like, and don't agree with. We all agree some things should be censored, but she drew the line far too high.

She had a magazine publisher all but thrown in jail just for publishing a poem. Whilst he managed to escape with a suspended sentence, the fine financially ruined the company and they had to cease publication (do a google for "The Love that Dares speak its name). Had they published it today, now that the antiquated law of blasphemy has finally been repealed, nothing would have happened.

But the challenge is still there. How many of us, beyond posting on a message board, would really be willing to go and publicly defend pornography and horror films? And how many of us would be able to do it without trotting out the same old tired arguments of "catharthis" and "natural behaviours". Huh?

Already done so, when the government first started looking at criminalising posession of images they considered "extreme pornography" (do a google for the Dangerous Pictures act) I responded to their consultation and wrote several letters to my MP explaining how this was an unjust law as it would criminalise otherwise law biding people for looking at images of a legally staged act, simply over maters of taste. Similarly when Julian Brazier tried to push through the BBFC accountability bill earlier this year I wrote to my MP again on this and posted a video on YouTube about it.

I'm quite happy to stand up and be counted.

[Vaughan]

Sadly the majority are silent. Any of these people - hell even most elected officials - are a majority of a minority. Mary Whitehouse didn't have the power to put anyone in prison, nor to prosecute anyone. She went through the process. Did the process make sense? Not really. I think that makes he a lot less than "evil". And I do think the majority of people at the time this was all happening backed her up. It wasn't like it is today for sure. Very different times, with very different people. The witchhunts still go on though, but the goalposts have moved.

She had a magazine publisher all but thrown in jail just for publishing a poem.

I understand, and it's not nice - but it was also lawful. So the law was an ass. If more of us spoke up, there'd perhaps be less stupid laws?

Had they published it today, now that the antiquated law of blasphemy has finally been repealed, nothing would have happened.

Yeah, times have changed. But strangely many of the same arguments still exist and are readily used - they just add "protect the children" to the end of everything now to sway public opinion.

[Pecker]

She wasn't 'wrong' in that she stood up for what she believed.

The biggest problem is that we need more Mary Whitehouses, only on the other side of the argument.

MW and her kind were generally not politicians or people in power, but normal people with strongly held convictions, who organised themselves into a credible pressure group.

Good luck to 'em! We should have done the same to fight 'em!

Steve W

[Someone Weird]

I voted misguided, for the same reasons outlined by Vaughan - she wasn't exactly Hitler and stoop to gassing horror film fans. She was just really annoying, and should have been laughed off the streets and pelted with eggs. Thanks to Mary, things like the 'video nasties' list were introduced and gave horror fans an extra interest/collecting resource, and extra way to make money for some selling originals/copies through the underground. Quite fun really when you look back on it - provided you didn't get caught. Mary and her nauseating followers were simply a very vocal bunch of busy bodies and those who disagreed never spoke up, maybe because they didn't want to be demonised, but probably because they couldn't be bothered - if they had a strong enough interest, they'd get what they wanted one way or another. The internet has definately made it easier for the majority to be more vocal, without having to lug placards around London. Just sign a petition or add a post on one of those news links like we have seen here in the past - just see how many pro horror/violent game posts there are compared to the anti, Mary Whitehouse wannabees and it just goes to show what the people really want. Mary Whitehouse was a mad old fool - if I remember correctly, she thought God helped her up when she fell down some stairs, and told her to ban filth, which is what started her crackpot campaigns. And people listened to her? Daft old bat should have been locked away. There is a good article about her in the magazine Scapegoat and her various crusades.

[SimonT]

I voted misguided, for the same reasons outlined by Vaughan - she wasn't exactly Hitler and stoop to gassing horror film fans.

Oh I don't know, I seem to recall her bringing a private prosecution for obscenity against some pornographer and at some point during the trial she was quoting from the scriptures and saying it would be better that a millstone placed around his neck and him cast into the sea

[drterror666]

Most definitely an evil, old Harpy! I remember her shenanigans from old and I just wished the old bat would give it up. I bet she's sorting out Hell now!

[Wayne]

I put other.

Evil = No she wasn't up there with the real evil people we must protect our children from.

Misguided = No, she knew exactly what she stood for.

Dangerous, public nuisance, interfering, out of touch and generally an embarrassment to herself and her family. She was not voted in to protect the public, so why did she think she had the right to decide for us.

[WillHay]

With the TV program "Filth - The mary Whitehouse Story" being shown this gave me the cracking idea of asking what you fine folks felt of her moral ideals.

So, as per the heading, did you think her moral crusades were just plain evil, or the actions of a misguided old fuddy duddy?

Whilst I believe both had something to do with her actions, I've actually voted for "evil" as I cannot condone anyone trying to ram their moral standards down other peoples throats. She was entitled to air her views certainly, but she always struck me as a megalamaniacal control freak.

She was wrong. She was a right wing Christian fundamentalist who was too stupid to see the truly unpleasant stuff in TV - stuff that was racist or homophobic or stereotypical was fine in her eyes.

[Pecker]

She was wrong. She was a right wing Christian fundamentalist who was too stupid to see the truly unpleasant stuff in TV - stuff that was racist or homophobic or stereotypical was fine in her eyes.

From what I know of Whitehouse she wasn't a fundamentalist - more of a conservative. Lots of Christians from different backgrounds are conservative, including Conservative Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Catholics, and even Liberals.

Generally this means being traditionalist, old fashioned, and not happy with change, particularly in respect of morality. So, suddenly seeing nudity and violence,and hearing swearing on the TV will jolt with you. It has little to do with biblical interpretation, which is what being a fundamentalist is all about.

One thing I would point out in her favour is that, as well as being against a lot of violence, she did actually oppose sexism and racism too, particularly with Till Death Us Do Part.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this justifies her stance on many things for a second - just correcting a few misconceptions.

Steve W

[WillHay]

From what I know of Whitehouse she wasn't a fundamentalist - more of a conservative. Lots of Christians from different backgrounds are conservative, including Conservative Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, Catholics, and even Liberals.

Generally this means being traditionalist, old fashioned, and not happy with change, particularly in respect of morality. So, suddenly seeing nudity and violence,and hearing swearing on the TV will jolt with you. It has little to do with biblical interpretation, which is what being a fundamentalist is all about.

One thing I would point out in her favour is that, as well as being against a lot of violence, she did actually oppose sexism and racism too, particularly with Till Death Us Do Part.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this justifies her stance on many things for a second - just correcting a few misconceptions.

Steve W

She was a fundamentalist, and believed that we should use the bible as the basis of our lives.

That shows her stupidity - 'Till Dead us Do Part wasn't a racist show - it painted Alf Garnett as a bigot who is generally shown to be a foolish while his family ridicule him. In one episode he is shown agreeing with Mary Whitehouse's right wing views. People like Whitehouse were so blinkered that they could not understand that. They can't see beyond words and pictures.

[Pecker]

She was a fundamentalist, and believed that we should use the bible as the basis of our lives.

That's not the definition of a fundamentalist, it's the definition of an evangelical.

Sorry to be picky - I hope you don't mind, I'm not having a go at all. It's just that these terms do get misused.

In Western Christianity (I won't touch on the Eastern Orthodox Churches, as they rarely impact on our discussions) we have four major branches of churchmanship: Catholic, Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Liberal.

Catholics believe the bible is the word of God. However, with it being a big book, it needs interpreting. Over the first few centuries of the church people came up with different interpretations of some doctrines. For example - was Jesus 100% God in human disguise, 100% human but perfect, 100% human and 'adopted' by God', a 50:50 hybrid? In the end the came up with wholly man and wholly God - long story, don't ask, we'll be here all day. So they decided God had put the church - particularly the Pope - in charge and with full power to interpret doctrine. In short, don't read your bible for the last word, ask your priest.

Evangelicals really started with Martin Luther and the reformation. They looked at Catholic doctrine and saw there were parts which appeared 100% the opposite of the bible. Subsequently, they said it was up to each believer to interpret the bible for him/herself. Evangelicalism is a very broad church (pardon the pun) more of which later.

Liberals came along at the time of the Enlightenment. Fed up with having to explain parts of the bible which they thought it was becoming increasingly obvious to be inaccurate, they decided on a new approach. They said the bible was inspired by God, but written by humans, and subsequently open to inaccuracy.

Fundamentalism started just over 100 years ago. They felt that traditional evangelicalism was becoming weak, and developed 5 'fundamentals' which were at the core of Christian doctrine: the inerrancy of the bible, the virgin birth/Christ's divinity, atonement through God's grace, Christ's resurrection as historical fact, Christ's miracles as historical fact and His second Coming as a future fact. As such, fundamentalists are maybe best seen as extremely conservative evangelicals, though some would argue they 'pick and choose' which parts of the bible are most important, which is as bad as liberals picking and choosing which bits are inaccurate, and are subsequently far from true evangelicals. Why isn't 'love God and your neighbour as yourself' in there, for example.

Within Evangelicalism you get a broad spectrum. Let's take creation as an example. To conservative evangelicals the creation of the world in 7, 24 hour periods is a historical fact. To the less extreme wing of evangelicalism you get people who believe the story is 100% accurate as God's teaching, but this doesn't make it historical fact. To draw a parallel they'd say you don't have to believe Jesus' parables (Good Samaritan, etc) really happened, just that they're what he really said.

In relation to this discussion, there's nothing in the bible about what you should show on TV. On the one hand you can get liberals who feel the country is going to the dogs, morality is on the slide, and TV is part of the problem. On the other hand, you can get fundamentalists who enjoy a good horror film, and who point out that watching one is neither against the bible, not any of the five fundamentals.

The Church of England is half-full of Mary Whitehouse types who are liberal (they won't believe Jesus actually walked on water, or that the world was completed in 7 days) but who are very old-fashioned, blue-rinse brigade types, who voted Thatcher and who 'tut' loudly when they see women drinking pints. They read the Daily Mail and believe in censorship.

Hope this helps.

Steve W

[WillHay]

That's not the definition of a fundamentalist, it's the definition of an evangelical.

Steve W

No it isn't. She believed we should use the bible and its principles to govern our lives - that's a fundamentalist.

[Vaughan]

That shows her stupidity - 'Till Dead us Do Part wasn't a racist show - it painted Alf Garnett as a bigot who is generally shown to be a foolish while his family ridicule him.

This is an argument I see often, but I don't think we can simply ignore the other side of the coin. Yes, I think most of us realize what was really going on in Till Death us Do Part - but on the other the material it contained could still be seen to support the opposite agenda. It also filled the airwaves with viewpoints that supported racism. That's what bothered people. Just because the subtext was how ludicrous Garnet looked, doesn't mean we can ignore how brave the show was to give voice to prejudice. It's what makes it dangerous. I don't doubt there were plenty of people who felt a closer association with Garnet than the did the son-on-law.

[Pecker]

No it isn't. She believed we should use the bible and its principles to govern our lives - that's a fundamentalist.

See my lengthy list of definitions (above). Trust me on this, I have a degree in theology.

This is an argument I see often, but I don't think we can simply ignore the other side of the coin. Yes, I think most of us realize what was really going on in Till Death us Do Part - but on the other the material it contained could still be seen to support the opposite agenda. It also filled the airwaves with viewpoints that supported racism. That's what bothered people. Just because the subtext was how ludicrous Garnet looked, doesn't mean we can ignore how brave the show was to give voice to prejudice. It's what makes it dangerous. I don't doubt there were plenty of people who felt a closer association with Garnet than the did the son-on-law.

Yes, I know what you mean. The programme was poking fun at Garnett, but a lot of people (thick people, to be fair) actually liked the programme because they associated with him.

Steve W

[Vaughan]

Sorry Steve, that was the point I was trying to make.

It's all well and good to suggest it was great writing because it poked fun at Garnett, but it wouldn't have been dangerous and fun if there wasn't a strong element of truth in it, something to make you squirm in the seat. And like it or not, I reckon there were plenty of people at the time cheering Alf on.

[Pecker]

Do you remember Love Thy Neighbour?

I mean on one level it was very anti-racist. The racist white neighbour was a complete idiot, whilst the black neighbour was a pretty decent bloke.

As usual in '70's sit-coms the real down to earth sensible people were the long-suffering wives, who got on with each other like a house on fire.

But white kids used to pick up the insults and hurl them at their black mates in the playground, and to an extent vice versa.

Steve W

[Vaughan]

Of course! I remember it well, just waiting for a complete box set to come out, and for Cloud to post a bargain price!

I'm working my way through the On the Buses box set, and in season 3 they have an episode called "That Snake". In it, the Indians at the Bus Depot have a party in the canteen (!). But what's interesting (other than the absurd plot) is the poster for the event - it goes something like: "Indian party night! All Indians invited...... and Whites!" The whole craziness of the era is summed up in that poster, seen over the shoulder of Stan Butler who's going because he thinks he can go out with a snake charmer (I kid you not).

All the stereotypes are nicely representd in these shows. It's the kind homely women who get along, who understand, who care and patcht hings up. It's the burtal, somewhat stupid men with only one thing on their minds that constantly cause the problems.

But yeah - As I've said, I think we like to intellectualize these shows now, it helps us cope. But I do remember hearing all the terms uttered in Love Thy Neighbor parotted the following day in the school playground - and the people weren't being ironic.