Page 8 | Misogynist Jeremy Clarkson gets his comeuppance… but what can be done about the thousands of other Meghan/confident-woman haters?

TallerSally · 2023-07-02T15:11:32+00:00

Have you noticed how genuine good news such as the above regarding Meghan often gets overlooked, while haters fall over themselves to create content from every tidbit non-event which can be spun as bad news? The Meghannilation pile-ons are ferocious and unrelenting, seeking to destroy the woman and perhaps end her life, while making money from clicks and views along the way. Every has-been and non-entity seeking to raise their sagging or non-existent profile (Mia Farrow? Chris Rock? Millie Mackintosh? random Spotify exec? Z-list YouTuber?) just has to find some creative insult for Meghan like “grifter”, and it’s days of front pages guaranteed. And not just in the UK’s tabloids, the broadsheets frequently jump in on it too. JC (not Jesus Christ)’s one article got slapped down, no small thanks to 25000+ principled residents of our nation who sent complaints to IPSO, the 64 cross-party MPs who signed a letter of protest, and the two charities who were signatories to the official IPSO complaint. At least there’s a shred of decency, perhaps even empathy, left in public discourse in the UK. Many celebrities get roasted in the British press, but the level of obsessive hatred Meghan faces is unprecedented – the stuff of PhD’s on parallels between media and online mobbing today and public floggings and executions of ancient Rome or medieval times – in that respect JC was inadvertently on to something: Meghan is already being paraded in the streets and excrement thrown at her, only virtually. Anyway so one misogynist and the media outlet supporting him get their knuckles rapped, but what about the hordes of other armchair tormentors, who from the darkness of their bedrooms bombard the world (well, mostly the UK) with hundreds, perhaps THOUSANDS of Meg-hating articles, blogs, vlogs, Twitter rants, Facebook posts, YouTube or TikTok videos EVERY SINGLE WEEK? The woman has barely said a word or shown her face in public in the past year, yet you’d think it’s her picture on the front pages every week in a different costume, tennis whites, camouflage, bee-keeping suit… (and no doubt soon, space-suit?) It’s impossible for a body like IPSO to regulate so many haters and platforms they use, yet the impact such intense public vilification has on a person is equivalent to JC’s article to the power of six. What can restore some form of respect for the truth, and basic empathy for a fellow human being and mother, who has committed no crime or spent no time befriending paedophiles? [Title of thread edited to say Jeremy Clarkson, not Jeremy Clarke]

BadgerB · 05/07/2023 08:57

Morestrangerthings · Today 08:53
Are you quoting me “bad things”. I don’t ever remember writing that Meghan has done “bad things.”?

Sorry - didn't intend to imply that you had said that.
Replace it with "things for which she is critisised". Same for Andrew.

Roussette · 05/07/2023 09:10

Milcar · 05/07/2023 08:26

I don't understand why that upsets you?

From what I understand you believe that the criticism they get stems from misogyny and racism? And that's why you post here, to oppose that?

I don't understand why disagreeing with a handful of random people on MN does much to tackle misogyny and racism, surely there are more constructive ways to do that?

Alternatively, you post here because you find it entertaining (I do!), in which case why complain about others posting? It provides you with entertainment.

Show quote history

No to all of that

I find it bullying of a woman primarily

Hotitalian · 05/07/2023 09:11

My thoughts exactly.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 10:05

But, when people call him a grifter or a non-entity or whatever just because he insulted someone they like, rather than it being based on any fact, that's just wrong.

But it isn't just because of his numerous outbursts about other people, although that is something people are free to criticise. I have been in the tech industry, DH currently is. Have heard of Bill Simmons before of course, hubby likes to call him one of the tech dude bro types with an old school way of doing things and gigantic egos. Bill Simmons is successful with his own podcasts but as Head of Monetisation and Innovation of podcasts at Spotify, he is not successful. People are allowed to criticise him and even call him a grifter because he is being paid when he isn't making money for his employer. The fact he sold the same employer a company for a lot of money does not mean he should not be criticised for his current job that is not going well. It is not prejudice to criticise him for his current role and his unprofessional behaviour and deflection.

Morestrangerthings · 05/07/2023 10:08

That’s okay.

Badger,

I really can’t compare them.

I don’t think Meghan has done anything that comes anywhere close to warranting the level of criticism she has been subjected to. It’s so outsized. And that’s an understatement.

I don’t think there is much criticism of Andrew. We see Andrew occasionally, and there’s a few rumblings on here.

We don’t even have to see Meghan and the cacophony continues.

Nearly everyone seems to be in agreement on Andrew. And criticism of him in traditional media is really quite limited. This is the RF board so of course his name is going to be brought up in a critical manner. But how much? I have no stats, but we had completed more than one 1,000 post thread and he isn’t mentioned.

I don’t really like to talk about him much. He associated with, had life long close friendships with, two truly heinous people. In 2022 he settled with Virginia Guiffre, so he’s still pretty topical really. Not so far in the past.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 10:10

Milcar · 05/07/2023 08:31

As I have just posted, I don't understand why it upsets you so much?

If it entertains you, post. If it doesn't, don't.

You keep telling people they shouldn't;t post or question them for posting. I think the same could be said to posters like you, surely. Theres a lot of posters, the vast majority, getting very worked up over what Meghan does next for example. Weeks of it. Much of it unpleasant. I think it is far more unusual and strange to post negatively about a celebrity every day than to question people and defend someone subject to this. People aren't just online for entertainment. I think its quite obvious that social media has changed society, has changed how we treat each other. Not for the better. If people want to push back against this sea of negativity and often pure hatred, then I can;t understand why it upsets you so much and why you have spent time this morning questioning why and what you think it achieves. Trashing someone for entertainment is not a good use of ones time.

MrsMaxDeWinter · 05/07/2023 10:28

LifeExperience · 04/07/2023 14:00

@MrsMaxDeWinter You must not be as old as me, but it was reported back in the day that Charles liked Camilla on top so he could bury his head in her boobs. So no, Meghan is not the only royal woman whose privacy has been horrifically violated, nor is Meghan the only royal woman whose sexual prowess has been discussed in the media. Meghan has never suffered the degree of vitriol aimed at Camilla, not even close. The difference is Camilla kept her mouth shut and Meghan claims victimhood status every time she perceives a violation.

So in your view, Meghan should do what Camilla did in the face of what you call "horrific" violations of privacy and just "keep her mouth" shut because to complain is to claim "victimhood status"

Does everyone who has taken on the press mean they claim victimhood status, should they all just have shut up, or is that particular nugget of advice applicable only to Meghan.

According to your reasoning, Millie Dowler's family should have kept their mouths shut, as should all victims of phone hacking. Even the Queen, who sent a legal letter to a paper that pre-empted her Christmas message one year should have kept her mouth shut. William and Kate too, who sued successfully after naked pictured of Kate were published abroad, should have kept their mouths shut.

Or is it only Meghan who you think should keep her mouth shut in the face of what you call horrific violations. If so, what is it about her that is different to the others? Why does she deserve to endure what you call horrific violations of her privacy while you demand that she keep her mouth shut. What is it about her that makes her legitimate complaints about the press equal to claiming "victimhood status"?

I will say again what I have said before, Meghan has been subject to racist treatment in the press and by the public, including on Mumsnet. And no, racism is not just being called the N word. The racism that she has been subjected to is more insidious because it involves different and more exacting standards being applied to her than are applied to white members of the royal family in the same circumstances.

So if there is a reason, not related to her race, that makes you say that she should shut her mouth in circumstances where white royal family members who have faced press intrusion have complained, I would really like to hear it. Thank you.

WinnieTheW0rm · 05/07/2023 10:32

Whether I like her or not.. don't care.. but I would really like to watch her in some movies because I thought she was great. She should definitely get back into it

It's really tough finding roles at that age in Hollywood (there was even a couple of lines in The Windsors about that!)

If she's seen as bankable, then it might be possible though. There was a lot of speculation about her agents, and whether that was a soft indication of intentions to return.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 10:36

MrsMaxDeWinter · 05/07/2023 10:28

So in your view, Meghan should do what Camilla did in the face of what you call "horrific" violations of privacy and just "keep her mouth" shut because to complain is to claim "victimhood status"

Does everyone who has taken on the press mean they claim victimhood status, should they all just have shut up, or is that particular nugget of advice applicable only to Meghan.

According to your reasoning, Millie Dowler's family should have kept their mouths shut, as should all victims of phone hacking. Even the Queen, who sent a legal letter to a paper that pre-empted her Christmas message one year should have kept her mouth shut. William and Kate too, who sued successfully after naked pictured of Kate were published abroad, should have kept their mouths shut.

Or is it only Meghan who you think should keep her mouth shut in the face of what you call horrific violations. If so, what is it about her that is different to the others? Why does she deserve to endure what you call horrific violations of her privacy while you demand that she keep her mouth shut. What is it about her that makes her legitimate complaints about the press equal to claiming "victimhood status"?

I will say again what I have said before, Meghan has been subject to racist treatment in the press and by the public, including on Mumsnet. And no, racism is not just being called the N word. The racism that she has been subjected to is more insidious because it involves different and more exacting standards being applied to her than are applied to white members of the royal family in the same circumstances.

So if there is a reason, not related to her race, that makes you say that she should shut her mouth in circumstances where white royal family members who have faced press intrusion have complained, I would really like to hear it. Thank you.

Show quote history

Thank you once again fr putting it all so well and I too, would love to hear this reason.

WinnieTheW0rm · 05/07/2023 10:38

I have no stats, but we had completed more than one 1,000 post thread and he isn’t mentioned

At least one Andrew thread ran to 3 or more parts, and there were several on the go at the times of broadcasts, claims, Maxwell trial etc). And the "back in the fold?" thread is active in the topic (was first thread on first page this morning)

So no, he doesn't get much dragged into other threads, but the critical posts are there if you look.

Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold | Mumsnet

Roussette · 05/07/2023 10:51

WinnieTheW0rm · 05/07/2023 10:38

I have no stats, but we had completed more than one 1,000 post thread and he isn’t mentioned

At least one Andrew thread ran to 3 or more parts, and there were several on the go at the times of broadcasts, claims, Maxwell trial etc). And the "back in the fold?" thread is active in the topic (was first thread on first page this morning)

So no, he doesn't get much dragged into other threads, but the critical posts are there if you look.

Prince Andrew BACK in the royal fold | Mumsnet

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING compares to Meghan, and you know it. There are critical threads and have been in the past but few and far between. Given... that about 2 or 3 years ago, I put in a search on threads with Meghan in the title since she arrived on the scene to date, and they numbered 650. (p.s. this took about 3 minutes of my time before someone calls me a sad git!) Yes, 650.

I started a lot of the Andrew threads, when he was dodging being served papers around the country and it was a case of will he, won't he, I believe we filled four threads, maybe five over quite an expanse of time. Apart from that, they were quiet.

Yes the back in the fold thread is being commented on. That is ONE thread. Just because a poster resurrected it and I replied and a couple of posters have joined in.

TheCrystalPalace · 05/07/2023 10:54

We've been over this so many times, @Roussette.
It's because we all agree on Andrew.
And surely the public backlash on Clarkson and Danny Baker indicates that most Brits were horrified by the racism and misogyny?

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 10:59

TheCrystalPalace · 05/07/2023 10:54

We've been over this so many times, @Roussette.
It's because we all agree on Andrew.
And surely the public backlash on Clarkson and Danny Baker indicates that most Brits were horrified by the racism and misogyny?

Yes but most of the posters here agree on Meghan and Harry and when there wasn't much pushback it just kept on. All that happened was a thousand posts fairly unchallenged all saying nasty things about them and laughing about it. The only thing that changes when theres nobody to disagree is that it gets a bit nastier. So the excuse nobody talks about Andrew because everyone agrees just does;t ring true for me.

WinnieTheW0rm · 05/07/2023 10:59

Solution is at your fingertips - start and post on the threads that interest you (whether RF or anything else). Which you do.

But Andrew staying largely under wraps isn't going to generate as much interest as things such as current court cases, or announcements of further publications

There are lots of things that I wish MN had livelier discussions about. But I don't think that's a reason to criticise or deride those which exist

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 11:01

Roussette · 05/07/2023 10:51

Nothing, absolutely NOTHING compares to Meghan, and you know it. There are critical threads and have been in the past but few and far between. Given... that about 2 or 3 years ago, I put in a search on threads with Meghan in the title since she arrived on the scene to date, and they numbered 650. (p.s. this took about 3 minutes of my time before someone calls me a sad git!) Yes, 650.

I started a lot of the Andrew threads, when he was dodging being served papers around the country and it was a case of will he, won't he, I believe we filled four threads, maybe five over quite an expanse of time. Apart from that, they were quiet.

Yes the back in the fold thread is being commented on. That is ONE thread. Just because a poster resurrected it and I replied and a couple of posters have joined in.

Show quote history

You're so right @Roussette and its not like there aren't other things that other royals do that are equally or worse than H & M's perceived wrongs, and they aren't discussed or aren't discussed anywhere near as much.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 11:03

Solution is at your fingertips - start and post on the threads that interest you (whether RF or anything else). Which you do.

You're missing the point. The posters who have so much to say about Meghan, do not give the same time to Andrew and other things that come up about the royals- such as the recent thing with Prince Michael of Kent and the Russian visa.

Chocolateship · 05/07/2023 11:06

I don't think there's really anyone keen on defending Andrew though is there, often there are polarising views on M&H so threads tend to get a bit heated. The trouble is M&H have relied on public interest to generate interest in their podcasts, netflix doc etc- courting the media for your gain also comes with negatives. Its a shame they didn't get on with forging different careers in stuff they're passionate about rather than reducing themselves to gossip fodder and proven liars.

Misogyny sadly isn't going anywhere.

Milcar · 05/07/2023 11:13

As I have said several times now, post about whatever you want. I do.

But accept that what interests you (Micheal Kent, whatever) doesn't necessarily interest others.

Harry and Meghan polarise opinion, and therefore generate debate. If you don't like that debate, leave it.

If people are posting criticism of Harry and Meghan, you have a choice of whether or not to respond. If you don't respond the sky is not going to fall on anyone's head. If you enjoy the debate, go and and respond. It is entertainment, either way.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 11:32

Chocolateship · 05/07/2023 11:06

I don't think there's really anyone keen on defending Andrew though is there, often there are polarising views on M&H so threads tend to get a bit heated. The trouble is M&H have relied on public interest to generate interest in their podcasts, netflix doc etc- courting the media for your gain also comes with negatives. Its a shame they didn't get on with forging different careers in stuff they're passionate about rather than reducing themselves to gossip fodder and proven liars.

Misogyny sadly isn't going anywhere.

The topic of the thread is Clarksons article. So to go on to say that 'courting the media' ( promoting your work or charities ) 'comes with negatives', is wrong to me.

Why can;t posters understand this? The topic is that article. There should be NO MENTION of anything else she did, anything about courting media, anything about anything else other than this is wrong, it is going too far and nobody deserves it no matter what. The disproportionate amount of attention and hate written about her is completely wrong.

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 11:33

It is entertainment, either way.

No, you don't speak for everyone. It is not entertainment to me.

Morestrangerthings · 05/07/2023 12:27

WinnieTheW0rm · 05/07/2023 10:32

Whether I like her or not.. don't care.. but I would really like to watch her in some movies because I thought she was great. She should definitely get back into it

It's really tough finding roles at that age in Hollywood (there was even a couple of lines in The Windsors about that!)

If she's seen as bankable, then it might be possible though. There was a lot of speculation about her agents, and whether that was a soft indication of intentions to return.

I watched Meghan in the first two episodes of Suits the other day. From all the negative references to her acting made on here, I really didn’t expect that she’d be very good. But, turns out, she is good, and most important, the camera loves her.

I can see why William and Kate liked her character in suits.

Roussette · 05/07/2023 12:41

Harry and Meghan polarise opinion, and therefore generate debate. If you don't like that debate, leave it.

Nope. Ain't happening, without me and others pushing back, the H&M threads would be even worse than they are. if that were possible

I don't call thousands of posts about a woman who has barely been seen for months 'debate'. I call it annihilation.

Roussette · 05/07/2023 12:42

If you enjoy the debate, go and and respond. It is entertainment, either way.

I don't call trashing a woman endlessly, when she is quiet which you all say you want... 'entertainment'.

Lampzade · 05/07/2023 12:44

MrsMaxDeWinter · 05/07/2023 10:28

So in your view, Meghan should do what Camilla did in the face of what you call "horrific" violations of privacy and just "keep her mouth" shut because to complain is to claim "victimhood status"

Does everyone who has taken on the press mean they claim victimhood status, should they all just have shut up, or is that particular nugget of advice applicable only to Meghan.

According to your reasoning, Millie Dowler's family should have kept their mouths shut, as should all victims of phone hacking. Even the Queen, who sent a legal letter to a paper that pre-empted her Christmas message one year should have kept her mouth shut. William and Kate too, who sued successfully after naked pictured of Kate were published abroad, should have kept their mouths shut.

Or is it only Meghan who you think should keep her mouth shut in the face of what you call horrific violations. If so, what is it about her that is different to the others? Why does she deserve to endure what you call horrific violations of her privacy while you demand that she keep her mouth shut. What is it about her that makes her legitimate complaints about the press equal to claiming "victimhood status"?

I will say again what I have said before, Meghan has been subject to racist treatment in the press and by the public, including on Mumsnet. And no, racism is not just being called the N word. The racism that she has been subjected to is more insidious because it involves different and more exacting standards being applied to her than are applied to white members of the royal family in the same circumstances.

So if there is a reason, not related to her race, that makes you say that she should shut her mouth in circumstances where white royal family members who have faced press intrusion have complained, I would really like to hear it. Thank you.

Show quote history

This

Chocolateship · 05/07/2023 12:55

Iwantcakeeveryday · 05/07/2023 11:32

The topic of the thread is Clarksons article. So to go on to say that 'courting the media' ( promoting your work or charities ) 'comes with negatives', is wrong to me.

Why can;t posters understand this? The topic is that article. There should be NO MENTION of anything else she did, anything about courting media, anything about anything else other than this is wrong, it is going too far and nobody deserves it no matter what. The disproportionate amount of attention and hate written about her is completely wrong.

Show quote history

In the title and first post yes, the rest of the thread discusses things more widely. Personally I think she disliked the media when they started heralding her as a breathe of fresh air due to her heritage rather than anything else.