Three woman murdered in Hertfordshire.

[BodenCardiganNot]

Absolutely shocking. A 26 year old man named as Kyle Clifford, believed to be armed with a crossbow, is being sought by police.
The dead women are aged 61, 28 and 25.

Here's the entire set of rules: https://4w.pub/the-rules-of-misogyny/

NAMALT is an example of rule 12: "Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry".

The worst incidence of this that I can recall was the murder of Clodagh Hawe and her three sons Liam, Niall and Ryan at the hands of her husband (who I will not name) in 2016. There was such a backlash to the early reporting, particularly in the Irish press, where all the coverage was about the perpetrator and next to nothing about her or her boys, that the hashtag "HerNameWasClodagh" was trending.

Her name was Clodagh - she was a victim, her killer was not – The Irish News

They pulled him up on obvious twattery. How many of them are even recognizing the more subtle misogyny, violence and abuse? None of them.

Maybe some outlets were showing respect to the family, just because others named them it didn't mean everyone had to if they knew the family weren't happy. The public don't have some overwhelming right to know their names.

Nope. That's not how it works. It is true that we don't have th eright to know the names necessarily. But once those names have been released publically, then they are out there.
1 If the report says, "women named" then, that means they have been named and the name should be in the report
2 at least one report said, "women named" then only named carol and referred to the other sas "daughters of".

So do you disagree with people who say they won't name the murderer even though his name is known?

Sometimes people can actually use their brain and think if this is going to hurt the family let's not do it until they agree and different families will have different views and feelings.

Yes, and even now so much of the commentary around this is "poor John Hunt." And yes, I don't disagree with that. I doubt the poor man will ever get over this; I don't see how you could. But poor Carol, Hannah and Luoise too. Three women who must have spent their last moments in absolute terror, and who have had their lives cut brutally short. They weren't just the family of a man, but individuals in their own right.

They named John Hunt. These women were identified. Everyone knew who they were. A story that says, "The women in the murders have been named. John Hunt's wife, carol, and their daughters". FFS. There was nothing here about not releasing their identities.

People asking not to be named is about preserving anonymity. There was none of that here. Why is this so hard to understand ?

Totally different if the headlines were, "Three women have been killed. Their identities are not being released at the request of their surviving family."

I think, these days in particular, media organisations vary in how they report victims' names. Inevitably names are often circulating on social media in the immediate hours after the crime and some outlets will report those, often with the accompanying lines "named locally" or "believed to be". Others, often like the BBC, will wait until the police have confirmed details and there is a formal process that needs to be followed before they do this.

And called an army veteran. No he isn't. He was in the army just a YEAR.

Absolutely. That formal process is usually identified when a report say ssomething like, "Women in Brentford murder named" in the headline. Then the article will say who the women are and name them.

In this case, even with the above headline, at least oe report did NOT in fact, name the daughters. And the relationship of all three women to a man was emphasised.

I appreciate that people probably think I'm like a rabid dog on this. But it's exhausting to see the different ways, across all types of news, women and men are reported on. The language that is used to describe them. The headlines. Even just the pictures (hasn't been so bad here thank goodness). It's relentless and so yes, I will bang on and on about it.

I just wish I could go back to my journalism school and run a module on this. "Unconscious bias in news reporting"

And they say women are the emotional ones 😒

@MaidOfAle ”I was called names upthread for saying that I chose not to have kids in part because I didn't want to bring a daughter into this world.”

Firstly, so sorry that happened to you, and I have the same worries about bringing a daughter into this world as well. I feel outraged at the injustice that we should have to contemplate such a decision. Girls have a right to be born and to live a full life free from violence and discrimination. I also worry if I have a son, can I counteract the messaging he will get from his peers, and society in general, and all of the toxic crap that is out there. I want to have children but this seriously weighs on me. This is in no way a judgment on those who have children, just my own personal angst.

I have a son and a daughter. It's complicated! They are young adults now and I think I have done ok, but who knows for certain? My DD's friend was date raped and she was very distressed.I don't think she should not have been born though.

My feeling is that many of the good men focus their efforts on sucking up to/placating/appeasing the bad men because they don't want to become a target. Many of the ostensibly good men actually covertly admire and would like to have the same power as the bad men who are feared.

Absolutely shocking to see this on the news.

Refusing to name the perp is an attempt at damnatio memoriae, a refusal to grant a criminal infamy by circulating his name.

It's completely different from wanting to name the victims as people in their own right whose lives mattered. "She's someone's wife/daughter/sister" means that she has a name of her own.

If the family have requested privacy, then that should absolutely be respected, but the reporting should state that they requested that.

When a surviving relative is named, it's a matter of registry office searches to find out who the victims are so you have to withhold the survivors' names to give them privacy. John Hunt was named so it's a mere registry office search to find out who his wife and daughters are.

In Clodagh's case, what peaked my rage was that the killer's family and the church were determined to have him buried with her and the children. It took a national outcry to stop it.

He was a good family man, you see, despite brutally murdering them all.

The older I get, the more I think that a lot of negative stereotypes of women - competitive, can't get on with each other, run on emotion, brittle egos etc - actually apply far more widely to men.

I remember that. It was as though some accident had sadly befallen the whole family, not that the man of the house made a decision to slaughter his wife and children.

@BustingBaoBun the sooner he is out of hospital and his revolting mugshot can be made public, the better. Agree he is no army veteran. He is an insult to humanity. Insecure evil woman killer.

I’m not in Ireland but that even made it to england. That was terrible. Truly terrible. What were the church thinking.

Yes. Thats exactly how it was reported wasn’t it.

He was initially buried with them and Clodagh's family spoke out afterwards saying they had been pressured (by the Church, surprise surprise) to agree. I believe he was exhumed about 8 months later and his body cremated, with the ashes given to his family.

The Rector of Bushey has said “This might sound strange but [this tragedy] has actually strengthened the community and brought it together, which is a wonderful thing. We realise that we are just one big family.”

Whilst I understand his intentions, it's quite a thoughtless comment. There is nothing wonderful here.