Superman actor Henry Cavill has been criticised for remarks he made about the #MeToo movement. Cavill said: “There’s something wonderful about a man chasing a woman… I think a woman should be wooed and chased, but maybe I’m old-fashioned.” Cavill worried that talking to women or wooing them meant he’d be labelled a rapist or risk going to jail. He said: “If I go and flirt with someone, then who knows what’s going to happen?”
I have wonderful news – nothing would happen if Cavill flirted with women, nothing at all. Similarly, for any men out there worried about being labelled rapists – as the law stands, if you don’t rape anybody, you’ll be fine. (I know, it’s amazing, isn’t it?) Likewise, chasing may be mildly jarring imagery to use these days, but it wouldn’t lead to actual time in jail. Nor would wooing or anything else that Cavill is planning – perchance his Superman cloak laid across a puddle for the little lady to daintily step upon?
To his credit, Cavill has since apologised for his unintended “insensitivity”. But, lemons and lemonade and all that – this could be a wonderful opportunity to clear up continuing male confusion surrounding #MeToo. Except that’s a bit tricky, because there isn’t any real reason for confusion – at least not for sentient males out of their teens. So now I’m confused: exactly what do certain men continue to be so baffled by the fact that they finally have to behave?
To listen to some, you’d think that, suddenly, we were in a dystopian reality where all male flirtation was punishable with instant castration. Even some older women have been spouting guff about how (I paraphrase) it was a privilege for previous female generations to deal with relentless casual lechery. (“Those halcyon days when men were men and women felt as though they were eternally trapped halfway between a strip-club scene in The Sweeney and a Benny Hill sketch.”) Back in the real world, modern women love to flirt as much as men do. Women just don’t want to be objectified, diminished, harassed, pestered, intimidated or assaulted – in the workplace, on the street or anywhere else. It’s all quite simple, so what are The Confused going on about?
My suspicion is that, while a small proportion of men might be genuinely baffled, others are only struggling with what they perceive to be an affront to their sense of entitlement. After all, what’s really so new? While the wider debate is always evolving, no sane woman ever wanted to be treated disrespectfully or worse. The only thing that is new is the chance – finally – to call a halt to the creeps and gropers who should never have behaved that way in the first place.
Does this have anything to do with men and women enjoying a flirt? Of course not. Happily, women don’t seem to be confused (not even a little bit) and can be trusted to know the difference.
In refusing to rise to Trump’s insults, Khan is the bigger man
How many times can President Trump be allowed to get away with what appear to be coded racist attacks on London mayor, Sadiq Khan? Trump and Khan had already clashed before the recent protests and we all know how well Trump copes with criticism (clue: like that old 1970s footage of people with advanced rabies).
However, with his attacks on Khan doing a “terrible” job, it’s become embarrassingly obvious that Trump is fixated on Khan being a Muslim and not only because the president seems – wrongly – to blame everything, from increased violent crime to terrorism, on immigration.
Problems with Muslim mayors, problems with female leaders – arguably, a theme is appearing. Bravo to Khan for making his points – permitting peaceful protest is not promoting his own views; terrorism is a global problem; crime has risen elsewhere in the UK – without losing his composure.
However, it’s obvious what Trump is doing or trying to do: all that grim heavy hinting that a Muslim wouldn’t be his choice for London mayor.
With all the talk of Trump being “disrespected” on his visit, what about how the London mayor is being treated? By Trump. Disrespect would seem to be the least of it.
Sorry, Elon Musk, but your whingeing is a bit rich
Elon Musk does not want to be called a “billionaire” and feels devalued and denigrated by the label. The billionaire (oops!) had his feelings hurt after he invented a miniature submarine to help rescue the boys from the cave in Thailand.
Although it was turned down as impractical, the Thais have hung on to it for “future use”, though whether this involves a national It’s a Knockout tournament remains tantalisingly unclear. But I digress. The Tesla co-founder says that he would prefer to be described as a scientist or engineer and that the term billionaire is almost being used as a putdown by media outlets, including those disrespectful, untrustworthy rascals, the BBC.
I would like to apologise if this piece further triggers Musk. It’s genuinely great that he wanted to help the trapped Thai boys, even if it might have reminded some Britons of the time when Paul Gascoigne randomly turned up, bearing lager and chicken, to try to help negotiations with fugitive murderer Raoul Moat, whom he’d met in a nightclub.
Obviously, Musk trying to help the Thai children is different to Gascoigne and Moat – for one thing, Musk didn’t bring snacks. However, has billionaire become a derogatory rather than descriptive term? So few people are billionaires that it seems appropriate to mention.
As a non-billionaire journalist, I remind Musk that all the children were rescued and are safe and well, unlike the navy Seal, Saman Kunan, who died trying to help them. These would appear the main points of this story, not whether an exceptionally rich man feels miffed at being labelled an exceptionally rich man. Should Musk continue to object, the world’s tiniest violins are on order in response.
• Barbara Ellen is an Observer columnist
