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.

No. It isn't, for all the reasons explained in this thread.

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.

In this specific case it's because he is a well known famous face. He is a colleague of some of the people presenting the news and information.

It would be different if he wasn't well known and they were then simply referred to as the wife and daughters if X, a local lawyer or local builder.

It's like when men talk about VAWG and say "because I have daughters...." as if somehow they would be less concerned if they didn't.

I also think that if it was the husband and son of a well known famous face it would be presented the same way. The victims would be reported as the husband and son of the celebrity it famous face.

I really don't think, in the case, it's a man/woman thing. It's a famous/not famous thing.

Ok, so he's a minor celebrity (though I'd never heard of him...he's hardly a household name. What's the excuse for giving the murderer a name but not his victims. It's like the whole 'her name was Reeva Steenkamp thing'.

If they were the daughters of a famous woman I think the famous woman would most likely have been killed too, as their mother was.

Only if they'd been present.
Had they, like the father here, been out then no, they wouldn't have been.
There is nothing to suggest that the father wouldn't have been killed too if he'd been present. Or the other daughter.

Unfortunately it would seem that all those in the house at the time were killed.

Sadly the murderer's name is always published be them make or female.
As many perpetrators seek the limelight and want to be known about I'd rather their names were never mentioned except in direct reporting in court's etc.

John Hunt is a poor example, but many women are happy to milk it, such as all the prominent WAGs who would otherwise be too far down the roster of fame to be worth a mention. They don't seem to mind fame-by-association and the boost to their insta-following.

I think so too: you’ve got a fixation and so you’re seeing it that way. How often was Derek Draper described as “Kate Garraway’s husband Derek Draper” when it was him who was unwell. The media just choose the better known name in the relationship. Misogyny has nothing to do with it.

Apologies, Hunt. Also, to those frothing about how we can possibly consider anything other than the awful murder, it is possible to hold more than one thing in mind. It does not diminish nor detract from the murder and the discussions around VAWG to also note this.

A lot of it is sexism.

John Lloyd, the ex tennis player (who won pretty much nothing in singles and doubles but did win 3 mixed doubles slams), used to be married to Chris Evert, an infinitely more successful tennis player who won 157 singles titles (including 18 singles grand slam titles, 4 tour end finals, 3 grand slam doubles wins and 8 Fed cups amongst them) and what were they referred to in the press? "International tennis star John Lloyd and his wife Chris".

I heard that on the 1pm news because the perpetrator was in a fit enough state to be arrested this morning. I thought that it was too soon and inappropriate to say that he'd been arrested for killing John Hunt's wife and daughters, the way they lumped together the DD's, then added on their ages seemed minimising the triple murder of three women. I think that all three should be named, so the horror of the perpetrator tying them up and injuring each of them, in front of each other, then leaving them dying. I hope that they were unconscious quite quickly. It sounds like one crime to lump them as they've done. It was one horrific act, but on three people.

He had been named and pictured as a suspect . They police needed the public to know exactly who he was and what he was suspected of. Why wouldn't a wanted man be named?

This^
I also think that some commentators are trying to communicate more personal message to him in a way because he is a colleague.

Well I wouldn't want it on the news at all if I had a choice but I'd prefer "dead woman" to using my name. My view is if someone googles me (don't know why they would) I wouldn't want the first (probably 2nd and 3rd as well) thing that comes up to be that I was murdered with probably some other gruesome details thrown in. I'd like you to see when I won an award and a well known sports personality presented me with the trophy, I'd like a picture with my kids when they won a sports trophy or at their graduations. I wouldn't want the foremost thing about me to be that I was a murder victim.

If someone googled my murderer I'd want the main thing to come up would be that they were a murderer because that would be the thing they should be remembered for. Nothing nice.

I'd rather they were named, why should a murderer be able to hide behind anonymity? Name them, shame them, condemn them.

John Lloyd was never and international tennis star. He got another of British press because at the time he was by far our most successful male player and she wasnt British. No one ever referred to Chris Evertt his wife in the rest of the world.

They aren't , unless they are a minor. Then a judge will decide if they should be named

I was replying to a post about it being a shame they are named, I never said they weren't named I said I think they should be named.

I think their names should appear as often, if not more often than the name of their killer and the name of their father / husband.

I agree OP - say their names... we should remember them, not just their killers and the men who were their husbands / fathers / boyfriends.

https://kareningalasmith.com/2024/01/03/at-least-100-uk-women-are-suspected-to-have-been-killed-by-men-in-2023/.

It might be a feminist reflex, I accept that my perspective could be wrong and that many people disagree - but I agree with you.

Well, technically I do remember reading about some matriarchal societies where the men are oppressed, so I guess in those cases the men experience sexism.

However in the vast majority of the world, no, sexism is something that happens to women.