Harry and Meghan (15)

[Froq]

No harm in having it ready for the next event/announcement...

@rockingchaircandle you don’t appear to have properly researched the News Guard claim. What you posted is false news.

News Guard admitted “we were wrong” about some of MailOnline’s practices and reversed their rating from red to green. They also admitted they hadn’t talked to IPSO before creating the rating and when they did, IPSO told them they were incorrect to have negatively scored MailOnline in at lone one category.

As for MM having a sell-by-date as an actress: I did wince at a PP using that term but it’s true that many actresses find their days numbered by ageism, more so in 2017 when MM left acting than most as a lot has improved in the last 3 years because of awareness and attempts to change it. Meryl Streep herself launched an age-related initiative in 2015.

Clearly she didn’t like something about the UK
The crappy way she was treated by the media and being used as a scapegoat, whilst never have really done anything wrong? I imagine once she started seeing fake stories and ape photos, she knew Archie deserved better.

I personally believe that Harry found out that Cambridge or Clarence House staff had sent false, negative information to a media outlet.

@peridito

Why have you quoted me in your post regarding Meghan saying she hates UK? I said she has cast aspersions and labelled us as racists, which she has, they both have, not that she hates us. In your desperation to provide "evidence" to justify your renewed policing of tone on this thread you've included a post that does not even say this.

peridito, that's 11 comments out of 14 threads with 1000 posts and the 15th thread with 795 posts.

In fact, a couple of the examples you give don't stand. The third one mentions the whole country being painted as hateful, not that MM hates it here. The last one doesn't mention she hates it either.

So let's take 9 comments out of 14,795 posts in total (given that you haven't given me the number of individual posters on all the threads) - and that equals 0.06% of threads - so, as I said, there is no common criticism that we think she hates the UK.

Do people honestly believe that Meghan had a huge career ahead of her after Suits ended? Seriously?

@annielouise

1. Age discrimination is real, and it's worse for female actors but that doesn't negate my point! Using this to imply Meghan was so desperate she has to go and trap herself a prince as a recent post implied is using this discrimination to attack women. 'No one had said women have best before dates': Actresses are women and don't have a 'best before', but attitudes like that post perpetuate the idea.

2. Over the top concern about Archie. He's in zero danger. Just a way of implying she's neglectful or selfish.

3. I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me here.

With regards to the examples I chose, they are the ones that I saw when I caught up this morning. They are common ways of attacking women. I do think there have been many misogynistic posts on these threads.

peridito: "The phrase cherry pickers has been consistently used throughout the threads.to describe picking and choosing events ."

As said, you were the first to mention it on this thread. I didn't. I said attend certain events which is logically the case.

Your example of joyful makes me laugh - she thinks we're all psycho racist bitches for criticising MM/

You're really clutching at straws with your arguments.

Update: 0.5% of threads after what Wendy has said.

rocking:

"1) Age discrimination is real, and it's worse for female actors but that doesn't negate my point! Using this to imply Meghan was so desperate she has to go and trap herself a prince as a recent post implied is using this discrimination to attack women. 'No one had said women have best before dates': Actresses are women and don't have a 'best before', but attitudes like that post perpetuate the idea."

It does negate your point. Actresses do have a best before date. It's not the nicest way of putting it but it is a fact - Google the number of actresses that have said it too!

rocking:

2. Over the top concern about Archie. He's in zero danger. Just a way of implying she's neglectful or selfish.

There is no over the top concern about Archie. No one has mentioned he's in danger! You're the only one that has referenced "danger".

@peridito ALL of your examples are from previous threads and not this one. How long did that take you to trawl through?

I know that it’s a continuing discussion but it’s bad form to complain about phrases and words used as if it was still ongoing when it’s not. (Which still makes you the first person to use the phrase cherry-picking on here.) Some of us, me for example, weren’t on the last thread. Some of the posters you quoted aren’t on this thread. Some of the comments you quoted are from over two weeks ago. You’d have something of a point if any of the posts or the wording you object to was repeated again here, but that didn’t happen. So I repeat, you’re stirring.

rocking:

3). yes I'm disagreeing with you. You exaggerate the amount of times and the effect this is happening.

Dandy - I'm wondering if peridito is going back through all the threads! Problem is not all examples she gives are true examples so if she comes back with more they will clearly be 30% wrong, taken out of context or twisted.

Time and again peridito and rocking come out with broad statements as fact that put the posters on these threads in a bad light. But when you dissect them there is no substance to what they say. Clearly, it's being done to discredit people on these threads and paint them in a bad light.

Going back to the cherry picking. peridito used those words first on this thread. Examples were given and she accepted it might be the case. Next day she brings it up again as example that people are saying cherry picking and it is being believed as fact. It was either you or Sunset who pointed this out.

Annie yes Peridito clearly is going back through all the threads, probably by doing a word search for those specific words. Which is probably why she appears to have taken one or two them out of context.

I looked at the oldest date of the posts she quoted and the starting date of this thread and the former preceded the latter.

@Perdito

The phrase cherry pickers has been consistently used throughout the threads.to describe picking and choosing events .Along with the more commonly used variations like picking and choosing .

joyfullittlehippo Wed 15-Jan-20 13:37:49
what they believed to be work-shyness and an insistence on cherry picking only the glam events

The first example of the phrase "cherry picking" you site in your post was used by joyfullittlehippo.

joyful seems very sympathetic on the whole towards MM.
I doubt (though I may be wrong) that she thinks that MM and H (as-I-too-call-him-now-as-it's-quicker-to-type) are "cherry picking" events. I think she may have been describing her perception of what some other people think and maybe the phrase got picked up after that.
So isn't the best example of someone using "cherry picking" perjoritively.
I don't know, of course, and am too idle to go back checking umpteen posts.

However, it does show that quoting bits of posts out of context isn't the best way to bolster your argument.

🙄 this thread is growing tiresome.

Posters are more interested in arguing than they are in discussing the actual topic.

Clearly, it's being done to discredit people on these threads and paint them in a bad light.

Well yes. And has been throughout.

@annielouise

I was about to type it all out again, but the answers to your points are all there in my previous posts! We're obviously not going to agree.

Ah.
Cross posted with @DandyAndFine.

Which is probably why she appears to have taken one or two them out of context.

Agreed.

rocking - you talked about "common" ways of attacking women. Your response to the first one was wrong - the poster said actresses have best before dates, you turned that into women have best before dates, which is ridiculous. Again, stirring things up. Again, few have mentioned she's a bad mother and for the third there were a few examples last night about jealousy.

What I'm saying is you pick up on things that have barely been mentioned, exaggerate how much they are talked about, twist them to your own ends. But then when dissected there's no substance to what you say - as proven by me and a few others above. All done to bolster your argument.

@annielouise again, I've explained why your points aren't correct previously. It's not stirring to disagree! I'm certainly not the only poster to have recognised that there is a lot of misogyny in these threads, obviously some have disagreed.

Do people honestly believe that Meghan had a huge career ahead of her after Suits ended? Seriously?

I don't think those people can have watched Suits, Wendy. I'm not knocking it, it's entertaining fluff, but it's not quality drama. Anyone who has seen the glossier American soaps (Dallas, Dynasty, Knots Landing etc) will recognise the style. There are no successful women in it who are not also young and beautiful. Actually, it's a very misogynistic format.

@LaMarschallin good spot that the first cherry -picking post was by joyfullittlehippo. That did make me laugh.

@Froq did you see the blind the other day about the friend speaking about Harry’s mental health and how it is apparently particularly bad right now? I hope there’s substance to that as otherwise it’s a shitty thing to suggest.

No, you haven't rocking. The accuracy in what you say is missing. You exaggerate and twist things to make posters look bad. There is not a lot of misogyny on these threads. Women pointing out stuff about another woman, or criticising, is not inherently misogynistic.