To wish women weren’t always presented in relation to a man

[Marvelo]

Heavens, my heart goes out to John Hunt (father of Hannah and Louise and husband of Carol, the women killed in the awful crossbow attack). But why is so much of the coverage focused on him and not the women? It’s completely irrelevant to the crime that he happens to be a commentator.

Just read an article in the Times on this-Hannah Hunt is defined in the headline as “one of the daughters of the BBC racing commentator”, the three women are then called “the family of the BBC horse racing commentator John Hunt”, then one of the women is described as “one of Hunt’s daughters” etc.

I know the media likes a celeb hook but it’s so inappropriate here (especially given the nature of the crime) to define these women primarily in relation to a man. I can’t imagine that John Hunt wants this.

Because he's famous and people know who he is, so it forms part of the story that it's the family of someone famous? If he wasn't famous, they would still likely report that man loses wife and daughters to scummy murderer.

Well it's only because he's the one in the public eye. I've seen it done the other way around and he certainly wouldn't be referenced if he was unknown would he?

I think you're trying to make a feminist point for the sake of it.

Isn't it about celebrity, rather than the fact that he's a man? I think it would get the same profile if these were the daughters of a famous woman?

I don't think it's a women being presented in relation to a man issue as much as a 'he has a job we should care about' issue.

If the man in this family was an Uber driver/worked in Tesco they wouldn't be describing it like that and it wouldn't be getting anywhere near the attention that it is.

It's classism not sexism.

I think you're trying to make a feminist point for the sake of it.

I agree and using the horrific murders of those poor women to make it, is beyond crass.

Had the husband and sons of a famous woman been murdered, they'd definitely be presented in relation to her.

Because he is famous and people relate to that, but I would assume the fact people died is the most important thing not how people are referred too?

It shouldn’t matter that he is famous. He as a person isn’t relevant to the shocking crime that has been committed against three innocent women at the hands of a man just because he couldn’t handle being told no by a woman.

The headlines should be using their names and not just be telling us that they are someone’s wife or daughter.

I don't think Margaret Thatcher was referred to as Dennis's wife, the Queen wasn't referred to as Prince Philip's wife. Depends who is better known. Travis Kelcee gets referred to as Taylor Swift's boyfriend because she's better known here, in the US they are both well known so less clear cut.

If I mention Hugh O'Leary fewer people will know who I'm talking about than if I refer to Liz Truss's husband. Probably the same with Suella Braverman's husband but I have no idea who he is.

As others have said, it's the fact he's known. It it was the other way round it would be exactly the same.

I can't work out why the OP is pretending not to know this?

This was just to provide context.
had it been John killed and Carol the famous person, they would have been referred to as her daughters.
Either way, RIP ladies and condolences to John.

BusyCM · Today 10:52
Well it's only because he's the one in the public eye. I've seen it done the other way around and he certainly wouldn't be referenced if he was unknown would he?

I think you're trying to make a feminist point for the sake of it.

This. The BBC news at 10 report last night was almost entirely focussed on the women, with close friends talking about them.

MrsSkylerWhite · Today 11:03
BusyCM · Today 10:52
Well it's only because he's the one in the public eye. I've seen it done the other way around and he certainly wouldn't be referenced if he was unknown would he?
**
I think you're trying to make a feminist point for the sake of it.

This. The BBC news at 10 report last night was almost entirely focussed on the women, with close friends talking about them

If his wife had been the commentator, it would have been written in relation to her. It just brings it closer to a chunk of the public that knows of him. There is plenty of misogyny around, but this really isn't.

OP, are you pretending that if God forbid, the same thing happened to Adele's (for example) husband and sons, it wouldn't be presented in relation to her?

Disclaimer: I'm using Adele to make a point. I have no idea if she has a husband/sons.

Exactly. Why are you using this awful crime as a way of virtue signalling OP? There's already too many grief vultures commenting on a load of other threads about this, and now you've made this one. Ffs, just stop.

I think in this specific instance it's about the connection to a famous person. If it was a female sports commentator's cousin or something, that's how it would be reported. In an age obsessed with celebrity and fame, that's inevitable.

But in general yes.

@Marvelo
I can’t imagine that John Hunt wants this

I can imagine that he's in his own private hell and is paying no attention to media coverage.

I really don't know why you would want to bring up a quasi feminist 'point' which, however much you protest otherwise, negatively reflects on his name. Leave him alone fgs.

This has been covered already in another thread. I would doubt, given the magnitude of this horrible tragedy, the family of the victims will give too much head space to it being reported as the wife and daughters of a BBC sports commentator.
I think they probably have enough to deal with tbh

I think you're overthinking this

This. That poor poor man. How will he ever be able to be in his house again.

I find this a lot here - even in 'innocent' referrals to "mans" family, its sexist etc

What about Kate Garroways husband?

Absolutely tired of this opinion, it's all over twitter too. Of course the media are going to report on their relationship to a publicly known person, as they would if the publicly known person was a woman.

But they have said their names, Carol, Hannah and Louise.

He as a person isn’t relevant to the shocking crime that has been committed against three innocent women at the hands of a man just because he couldn’t handle being told no by a woman.

How is he not relevant - fucking hell, sure let's tell the man who has just lost his family in one hit, and you say he is not relevant!?!?!!? Jesus - I've read some utter shit here, but this takes the biscuit!!

Shame on you

Kate Garroway's husband is a perfect example.

And why has the OP started a crass thread and not even bothered to return?