Yet 'more' internet sexism - Louise Mensch sexist abuse on Twitter

I have plenty of friends who use Twitter, but I don't like it - the nature of how it is used, and how anyone can simply drop a soundbite out there. Of late it has become filled with people imagining that they can hide behind a username to hurl abuse at someone they envy/dislike/resent/all three. As a public platform where comments are recorded, users should be aware that their comments can be and should be treated with as much accountability as leaving a written notice on the village hall noticeboard or publishing it in a newspaper - and be subject to prosecution for libel or slander if it oversteps the line. Would they be using the exact same words if they had to leave their full name and the area where they live?

As a see it, Ms Mensch was not defending Mr Murdoch per se but pointing out that the committee had not followed the proper procedure before pronouncing Rupert Murdoch "unfit" to run a media empire - a judgement that immediately made most, if not all, major newspapers and radio bulletins the next day. His newspapers may have done very, very serious crimes - phone hacking, buying and selling information, etc but Ms Mensch was not addressing those issues. As I see it, I doubt that there would have been as much personally directed abuse if Ms Mensch's point had been made by a 70 year old male MP.

Louise Mensch Twitter trolls face prosecution, says police chief

Read more: www.theweek.co.uk/politics/46631/louise-mensch-twitter-trolls-face-prosecution-says-police-chief#ixzz1tuzy27Bw

Oh hold on I reread it I understand now!

I don't understand your first para there abs?

So if women do the same as men and get the same donations and stuff isn't that good?

Is this in the US?

There was an article in the Economist about women in politics, and that actually women who run for office do no better than male politicians, they get the same amount of donations, get the same amount of votes. They then went on to wonder why women don't run ...

Now we know the answer

For me personally, I would never ever consider going into politics, particularly as a woman. You're opening yourself up to so much scrutiny and unjustified abuse, as has been shown here.

I do applaud Louise Mensch for not shirking on this, and publicising the abuse. Name and shame.

I think that she has said herself that the books arent good, so maybe she wanted to dissociate herself from that a bit by using a different name?

I doubt things will change for probably a hundred years without quotas but on a purely personal level I would never ever want to benefit from them and glad I haven't (even though men have benefited from them for the past couple of millennia ).

Worst thing about LM is that she isn't that bright or effective, but valued because of her looks -a lose-lose if you ask me!

I don't think its a coincidence that all the Conservatives on the panel LM included, did not accept the 'not fit' accusation.

I can see their point - too harsh a criticism - that he is 'unfit' despite having (rightly or wrongly, corruption or no corruption) done quite a lot that is astonishing .. (mind you I suppose gadaffi, hitler, geghis khan, Trump could be in that category! ) could lead to people defending him where they might not.

Oh Louise Mensch is perfectly ghastly. But she has a right to express her ghastliness without being threatened with violence, sexual or otherwise and without sexualised insults about what an ugly tart she is or whatever these tossers go in for nowadays, from people with penises who look like fucking gargoyles themselves, who feel entitled to reduce womento merely what they look like or whether they'd like to shag them or not. Yuk.

No, I don't think so, nor make any sexist comments as far as I am aware.

Does she threaten to smash their faces in with a hammer?

Louise Mensch isnt above insulting others who dont agree with her...

I didn't answer my own hypothetical question though!

In that situation I think I would have to abstain.

Fortunately there are always more than 2 choices!!!

I think quotas are a necessity.

Men have had quotas for years; 100% male only shortlists. Because of that, women aren't competing on an even playing field. We simply have to level it.

No-one's going to tell me that that would lower the quality of candidates and have me believe them. I do not believ that women are on average less capable and competent than men. I also don't believe that it's possible to get a female candidate who is going to be even more of a nobber than some of the men who stand for councils and parliament, like this particular nobber. Nobody has said about this nobber: "the reason he has made such a crass and woman-hating remark, is because he is a man, this proves that we need to make sure we're more careful about what men we let in to the candidate lists".

Men are allowed to make mistakes, people will take a risk on a man. Quotas would ensure that women are treated the same way.

Even if a tory in the local elections was saying things that I agreed with I'd not put an X next to them.

Sounds like you are a victim of conditioning Sardine especially if the Labour candidate was a misogynist knob - are you really sure you would vote for him simply because he is not a wicked Tory but only a misogynistic twit? Not sure how that would help women.......

Personally, I quite often vote for a different party member at the local elections than at the general election - on the basis that they have done a good job for the community and especially if they are not what I call a knee-jerk politician i.e. my party right or wrong.

What is this, the 1980s?

I suppose it's handy that some of the dickheads out there choose to advertise their dickhead-ness so clearly via Twitter. What a bunch of f&%ing s%$&:!ds.

Yes and I totally get that.

I have been persuaded though that by doing that, women will never gain equal representation.

TBH I have always voted on party political lines rather than on the person - I have no idea what my local tories policies, aims and ideas are for our borough. Even if a tory in the local elections was saying things that I agreed with I'd not put an X next to them.

What about quotas? Anyone think those are a good idea?

I would always vote for the person on the basis of their policies, aims and ideas.

I would never ever vote for a person on the basis of their sex and I have been a feminist since my childhood.

it's an idea not a direction!

I did it yesterday and put a woman at the top followed by the candidate i wanted.

I don't think I could bring myself to vote tory either.

But - and again an idea not a direction! - what if the choice was between a tory woman who seemed to care about and understand things that matter to women, and a leftie man who seemed to be a sexist? Imagine there are no other options... What then?

What struck me as ironic is the photo's alongside the article.

Almost all female celebs, several of them in bikinis. One discussing looking sexy when pregnant.

Utterly inappropriate to the main article.

trisha I have never voted tory either!

I just don't see how we're ever going to get women's interests on the agenda when everything is run by men though.

It's almost a default reaction to a women voicing an unpopular opinion - the violent, mysogynistic language.

It's shameful, totally shameful!