Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

This is fucking disgraceful (Daily Mail)

209 replies

rootypig · 26/05/2014 16:09

Daily Mail is framing a teenage girl as being at the root of the Santa Barbara shootings, because she 'teased' the perpetrator (according to his 'manifesto'). They have posted pictures of her (with her face pixelated, some concession), in varying states of undress, of course (bikinis, short shorts, things that best fit the narrative).

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639555/Meet-model-named-Santa-Barbara-killer-reason-saw-women-mean-cruel-heartless-creatures.html

I loathe them already, but this has shocked me. The poor girl. How can they get away with this?

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 22:13

I've just been factual - anyhow happy to have been able to correct some of your many errors.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 22:11

Sorry - that sounds more insulting written down - it was a bit more playful in my head!

I am happy to disagree Nancy, but I find your brusque posting style difficult to engage with. Of course that is your prerogative, but that is the basis of my inference - which I am happy to accept is wrong.

Unlike my substantive reading of the PCC code of conduct Grin

OP posts:
Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 22:09

Noooo, it's inferred from the style and content of your posts. Plenty of people here who don't agree with me.

But you're right, on reflection, your posts have been devoid of emotion glee Smile

OP posts:
MNHQ
YetAnotherHelenMumsnet · 26/05/2014 22:08

Hi all,
Rootypig has asked that this be moved to Feminism, and we are happy to oblige.

Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 22:06

its not inferred, it's assumed by you because I didn't agree with you.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 22:00

It's inferred from the rest of your posts

Thanks for the love, Love Grin

OP posts:
LoveSardines · 26/05/2014 21:42

Phone spelling awful sorry.

LoveSardines · 26/05/2014 21:41

The point the op is making, at the moment, is that some posters are dating how terrible one sorry of bullying is, speculating that this young man was bullied and that it is therefore understandable that he murdered a bunch of people, while saying nothing about the bullying behaviour of a paper towards this girl who as far as we know has done nothing wrong whatsoever, let alone committed multiple murder.

Op has an excellent point and it is being played out excellently by some posters.

Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 21:41

I know - it's 8 words stating an update. Where's the 'barely concealed glee?'

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 21:37

I'm referring to your post at 20:00 Nancy, in the context of all your other posts on this thread in support of the DM.

Anyway I've just hopped over to feminism to read the thread that cat mentions and as a result I think that people there are interested in this so I've ask MN to move the thread.

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 21:28

'barely concealed glee' - eh? what the fuck are you talking about.

EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 20:57

I have not seen anyone say it was ok for the DM to humiliate anyone, because someone with an ASD diagnosis murdered 7 people, you are saying that.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 20:54

I don't feel, Effective, that your response is to the most salient points of my comment.

We're saying that it's ok for the Daily Mail to humiliate a young woman, based on what she may or may not have done as a child, to a man who violently murdered 7 people, because he had an ASD diagnosis?

His ASD diagnosis was absolutely relevant to the support he should have received in life (and from the coverage, it sounds as though he had sustained access to professional help). It has fuck all to do with the Daily Mail's coverage. In fact - more irony for you - it barely features, if at all.

OP posts:
EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 20:49

He had a diagnosis of being on the Autistic spectrum, that does limit those on the spectrum in some ways, and does make him vulnerable.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 20:45

It is speculative nonsense that justifies his deranged misogyny - worse than that, it completely overlooks it, in favour of a version of events that we have no idea is true.

Joylin gives a list of factors that s/he thinks makes his actions "understandable". They are: being bullied to the point of insanity; a disability which makes him very vulnerable to harassment by every little shit out there and limits his ability to understand, cope and get through it; extreme isolation, loneliness, resultant rage and misery; young male hormones and easy access to weapons.

Apart from not knowing where half this list comes from - imagination? - and that the woman we are discussing is presumably one of these "little shits" - utter speculation - it leaves no place for the fact that the murderous hatred of women that this young man harboured flourished beautifully in our society, let alone (the point of this thread) that his hateful misogyny is now being propogated in the wake of his death. It is the most appalling tribute to his memory imaginable.

OP posts:
EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 20:33

It is not defending, it is explaining, sharing thoughts and idea's as far as I can see.

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 20:28

Joylin your post is so speculative and generalised as to be ridiculous. There is no evidence that this kid was bullied to insanity, least of all by this girl, other than his own deranged testimony. Even if he were, the misogynist content of the Mail article is indefensible.

The article now includes direct comment from this woman's father (yes, now named and full pictures Nancy, thanks for your barely concealed glee), who says:

"'She was ten years old for God's sake - she can barely remember the guy. He's a sociopath. She hasn't seen him since school.'"

It is patently ridiculous, sensationalist journalism, and the fact anyone here is defending it in the context of being aware of the dangers of bullying is so ironic it is jaw dropping.

OP posts:
EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 20:28

I agree what a well thought out post Joylin.

The mail thinks they are above other press, who print the bare backside of Kate Middleton.

bialystockandbloom · 26/05/2014 20:16

joylin what a tremendously thoughtful and insightful post. There is a reason for what this boy did which goes beyond "he was just a woman-hater".

Joylin · 26/05/2014 20:02

Bullying can drive the victims to kill themselves, some will take others with them. Maybe she did bully him to breakdown or maybe he misconstrued certain things as bullying, only the people who were around at the time know for sure whether he was tortured by her. If true hopefully she'll regret her actions along with all his other tormentors and they'll raise their children better than they were raised.

I have sympathy for anybody who's been bullied to the point of insanity, add in a disability which makes him very vulnerable to harassment by every little shit out there and limits his ability to understand, cope and get through it, combine his extreme isolation, loneliness, resultant rage and misery with young male hormones and easy access to weapons, it's understandable that he'd react like that. He sits around all day killing things on a screen to avoid the rejection he experiences in real life, shooting people for real is the only way he feels he can engage with a world he's entirely detached from.

This is a tragedy but it should be an avoidable one; there needs to be care to ensure that potentially dangerous people don't have access to firearms, bullying shouldn't be tolerated in schools or anywhere for that matter and isolated kids shouldn't be allowed to retreat even further from the world into 24 hour computer games. Not suggesting the latter causes violence in most people but it does push kids who are already detached from reality even further from it and the only thing in their head hour after hour, day after day is kill kill kill...

Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 20:00

DM have now named her and stopped pixelating

Original poster
rootypig · 26/05/2014 19:53

Owl she was 13 when they met.

If any of you is having difficulty distinguishing the substantive point I'm making, why don't you imagine your 13 year old daughter knew a boy, who grew up to be a multiple murderer, and the papers felt entitled to discuss your daughter's life and conduct at the time she was a child, in relation to this crime to which she has not been linked, on the front page of a website that gets 12 million visitors daily.

OP posts:
Nancy66 · 26/05/2014 19:14

when it comes to the PCC your interpretation is wrong rooty - she isn't a child now that's all that matters. Its the age of the subject at the time of publication that's relevant.

OwlCapone · 26/05/2014 19:08

They are discussing her conduct when she was a child.

But she isn't a child and I don't believe any of the photos are of her as child.

EffectiveCommunication · 26/05/2014 19:06

Actually, I am sure I read somewhere recently they think antisocial personality disorder was caused by brain damage, bullying and a trauama like divorce. Not everyone with those things will end up with a personality disorder, just seems to be a recipie for it.

I think there was also something about brain scans showing these people have brain damage in the part of the brain that controls empathy.