Journalist and publisher Jennifer Byrne interviewed Christopher Hitchens during his Australia trip in May 2010 on ABC 1. Play All 3 Videos.
What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
Join the discussion
Popular Posts
-
Mr Steve Wasserman, Christopher Hitchens' literary agent, kindly replied to my query about a possible memorial. Posted with permission. ...
-
May 12, 2010. The Veritas Forum. Christopher Hitchens debates John Haldane on 'We Don't Do God'? Secularism and Faith in the Pub...
-
By Christopher Hitchens Ever since Tom Lehrer recorded his imperishable anti-Christmas ditty all those years ago, the small but growing... -
Why Evolution Is True has a great post on Hitchens encounter with 8 year old Mason, who wanted to know what books she should read. Read... -
Jeremy Paxman interviews Christopher Hitchens in Washington D.C. Full interview on BBC2, Nov 29, 7.30pm.
-
June 1, 2010. Christopher Hitchens interviewed on BBC on his memoir Hitch-22.
-
Questioning the moral heroism of India’s most revered figure. By Christopher Hitchens "JOSEPH LELYVELD SUBTLY tips his hand in his... -
In The Year of Magical Thinking, the 2005 best-seller, Joan Didion dissected the trauma of losing her husband, John Gregory Dunne. With Blue...
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Paine
Baruch Spinoza
George Orwell
Bertrand Russell
Leon Trotsky
Rosa Luxemburg
Socrates
6 comments:
If this was the last interview I got to see of Mr. Hitchens, I would still be sad, but nevertheless quite amused. An excellent piece of work by Mrs. Byrne. None of that overly touchy sentimentalism, but an elegant inquiry into who this “sexist but charming” Christopher Hitchens really thinks he is. I am hoping for many more of these to come.
For fuck’s sake Hitchens, hang in there! We still need you to rip Niall Ferguson a new one, when he publishes his Kissinger biography in 2012. Also: I still need my book signed by you.
Although seriously: All the best and get well.
Ms Byrne is one of the few journalist types out there who actually does reasearch properly! You could tell how much effort went into her questions, starting off with the Dorothy Dixers, then probing much more deeply. I think the best thing to throw at Christopher regarding his attitude towards woman and work, should be his own eloquant "What is asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof." His proof for that opinion is shabby to say the least, unlike the platform of evidence that he usually presents us with when justifying his views on anything.
DeepFritz, you need proof for facts, not opinions.
Wow - I just now had the opportunity to watch this video and thought it was done exceptionally well - until the end when she went off the deep end on the 'sexism' thing.
First - I am a woman, one that would be considered a 'feminist' (I dislike labels since people rarely fit them completely), almost reactionary at times about it and what he said did not strike me as sexist. Old fashioned - but not sexist. What many people seem to not understand is the difference between words and intent. I interpreted Christopher's intent as wanting to care for someone he cares about. He seemed to have no problem with the idea that the woman may want a career but feels obligated in a sense to offer an alternative. I got the impression it's a gift in his mind to someone he loves. Many men, especially older ones, feel this 'obligation'.
I grew up in a household where my father ensured my mothers being stuck at home with my existence. She was told on New Years Eve, after stating that she would like to start getting out more now that the children were getting older, "Like hell you will, you'll be pregnant by this time next year." Well, I was actually born in December, so he was ahead of schedule. That is sexism. If there is anything about what Christopher said that could be sexist are all of the women who would fight, kill and dismember to get him so they don't have to work. I have seen far too many women who 'expect' to be taken care of by the man who damn well better provide well for them. That is sexist. It doesn't matter what sex you are - determine someones role by their sex - you're being sexist.
It really bothers me because he looked genuinely 'hurt' by her statement of his being sexist. I don't think he meant to come off that way - and didn't expect her to take it so seriously. Now all of those who were all up in arms about his 'women aren't funny' thing are going to all be fussing about this ... sigh ...
I don’t think the „sexist“ comment ought to be taken as an insult, but as a good-natured joke. After all, it is odd for a proud 68er to have this very traditional sentiment about women. He is by no means being sexist with that view, but rather overly gentlemanly. So much so that it comes across dated in today’s world (at least I think so, but then I am about 1/3 his age). But in the same vein as George Orwell not being able to pull-off a single believable female character, Hitchens has always been hard to figure out on women too. And the near-omission of them in Hitch-22 doesn’t really help that. I don’t blame him for being a private guy on such matters. To the contrary, I think it is a sign of the guy’s class. Yet when his views on women shine trough, like in this piece or the humor article in Vanity Fair, I am always stunned how old-fashioned he can be. Call it sexism or call it chivalry, either way it feels foreign. Something people my age don’t quite get anymore.
Byrne missed Hitchens's meaning. He said his partner needn't work, not couldn't. He elaborated for Byrne: his partner could work if she wished. Byrne however went straight to pseudo-Feminist hysteria as if he'd said his partner had to stay barefoot and pregnant. A shameful display of bad journalism, bias and rudeness rolled into one. And she presents Australia's premier literary program???? Hitch will doubtless have something to say about the quality of intellectual life in the colonies...
Post a Comment