Martha Hancock - a victim to be pitied?

[FourScoreAndTwenty]

Great article here about the portrayal in the press of wives whose husbands have cheated on them. I didn’t see the thread but mumsnet’s mention does not cover women in glory it has to be said .

If a mirror was held up to much of what is written on here, a lot of people would be very embarrassed.

What, a man is unfaithful but the ones at fault are definitely Mumsnetters for asking where the wife got her sunglasses? Struggling to see the logic, here.

Good article!

Oh no, Matt Hancock is an utter wankbadger, lowest of the low. Unfaithful husband and health secretary breaking the rules in the middle of a bloody pandemic. He is scum.
I only mentioned the mnet thing because, well, I'm on mnet!
The article makes a great point about the outrage felt by Boris and co. that Chris Whitty was hassled (and rightly so) but nothing to be said about harassment of Martha Hancock - because it's 'legitimate' harassment by the press . In fact absolute silence from the government all round about the moral and political failings of Hancock. Mind you, having Boris as a leader means that will never happen whilst they are in government.

We no. There were plenty people on here condemning the media for hanging around outside her house whilst MH hid away with his lover.
The people who admired her style though were all saying how strong she is coming outside, facing the shitty media and looking fantastic at the same time. How many of us would be like that? I'd be scoffing doughnuts in bed with unwashed hair and a bottle of wine for at least a week!

I saw 2 threads about Martha Hancock's sunglasses and frock - both as far as I could see were 100% supportive and admired her ability to 'style it out' in an emotional crisis. Disappointingly bad faith take there from Catherine Bennett.

Oh that’s good @Floisme - I only read her take on it.

The threads on her style were I suppose a bit flippant if one were determined to make a criticism but were 100% in support of her
(And it was a beautiful dress)

The threads I saw were very much written in the sense of being supportive, admiring her class and style in the face of what was going on.

A bit like virtual friends rallying round to protect and boost a friend in need.

That's not to say there aren't lots of mean threads on mumsnet, but they were not them.

The article links to the thread - it's totally cheering Martha on.

There’s a difference, matt hancock brought it on himself. He did th crime, so yeah he should do the time snd Boris shouldn’t defend him. Chris witty has done nothing other than work tirelessly at his job and deserves nothing but praise, even if you disagree with his approach, he doesn’t deserve being hassled or abused in the street and put in a headlock by drunken thugs.. And women on here were very supportive of Martha.

I thought most of the women who commented were supporting Martha in the same way they would one of their friends who was about to go through divorce.
There were some off colour comments. That's because women are fully human and we are all flawed. Every one of us.

CB links directly to a specific thread from her article and indicates that it says this:
Didn’t she, some thought, look just too good, considering? “She knows exactly what she’s doing.”
Except can anyone see a post like that on the thread concerned cos I'm buggered if I can?

The only comments I can see that I might deem off colour are the ones expressing surprise that a man of Matt Hancock's calibre can find two women who'll shag him.

The kindest thing I can say is that it's a very lazy piece of writing and that if it was in the Daily Mail we'd be kicking their arse.

I read that article yesterday and thought it hugely misrepresented the tenor of the threads on the subject. There is a cadre of Guardian columnists who are intent upon vilifying Mumsnet.

Hmm, Floisme. Not very nice, to try and paint MN users as mean and judgemental, especially if you say they were being supportive.

I think there is a section of 'progressive' women who are very anti MN and perhaps women/mothers in general. I'm thinking of the academic who keeps publishing on how women 'weaponise their trauma' and 'white women's tears', etc. Instead of looking at the issue, of, say, male violence or rapists, she seems to be fixated on how women ought to respond to rape or abuse. It's shitty.

Yes no one said that, don't recall seeing any negative posts about her, I think some said they were impressed with the dignity she was handling it with, I don't think that's negative to be honest.

I can't find either of these "quotes" in the 2 Style and Beauty threads. There are other AIBU threads but I don't believe Catherine Bennett knew of them, far less read them, given she didn't link to them.

The only criticism which might be valid is the S&B threads are perpetuating/ repeating the media intrusion- but that's pretty weak.

Martha Hancock is a very stylish woman.

I haven't seen any of the posts about Martha Hancock so I can't comment on the Mumsnet reference.

What is striking is how little attempt the politicians concerned seem to have made to protect their wives and children from the media fallout. I suppose it's an improvement on the example of David Mellor whose wife was photographed in 'standing by my man' mode. These are all Cabinet ministers who supposedly have media advisors.

FWIW I admired Martha Hancock walking in public, knowing she would be photographed. She was not the one who had broken the rules she made. I was also shocked that he resigned because of breaking social distancing rules. That was what Kay Burley did. It sounded so heartless, nothing about the hurt and disruption that he created.

I thought those threads were very supportive. They felt like a friendly handhold, in case she is a MNetter.

I looked on the sunglasses thread because I liked her sunglasses. I don't understand why that's awful?

and the thread was very complimentary.

@Bluntness100

There’s a difference, matt hancock brought it on himself. He did th crime, so yeah he should do the time snd Boris shouldn’t defend him. Chris witty has done nothing other than work tirelessly at his job and deserves nothing but praise, even if you disagree with his approach, he doesn’t deserve being hassled or abused in the street and put in a headlock by drunken thugs.. And women on here were very supportive of Martha.

The comparison is between attitudes to MARTHA Hancock’s media besiegement & Chris Whitty’s experience of common assault , not between Matt H’s bad press & Whitty’s ordeal. That is quite literally the point of the article.

Martha H hasn’t brought anything on herself.

@KimikosNightmare

I can't find either of these "quotes" in the 2 Style and Beauty threads. There are other AIBU threads but I don't believe Catherine Bennett knew of them, far less read them, given she didn't link to them.

The only criticism which might be valid is the S&B threads are perpetuating/ repeating the media intrusion- but that's pretty weak.

Martha Hancock is a very stylish woman.

That’s bizarre, CB has clearly read what was here, and formed a view. She doesn’t have to link to the threads she disapproved of to prove she read them. She is probably an MNetter herself (and clearly not a S&B kind of woman).

I was on that thread and I loved her dress and would have told her so if I knew her. MN was very supportive of her.

The Guardian are the problem. Not MN. That article misrepresented the thread.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect a journalist in an allegedly quality newspaper to link to the thread that supports your claim, rather than to one that does no such thing.

And Catherine Bennett wrote a column about clothes for a while so it's entirely possible she's familiar with S&B.