'A female with a record like this ...represents all that is rotten in society nowadays'

[JaneS]

That's the comment from the judge who sentenced the girl in this article.

It's appalling, isn't it? I can't be the only one of us to think he should never have said that?

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jan/22/poster-girl-booze-britain-interview

I like Kate Millet's take on the moral double standard for males and females.
She puts forward a convincing analysis that during the Victorian era, for example, women were forcd into the role of "moral guardians" for the family, and for society, all because:

"men felt that somebody should be doing it but felt it was too tedious for them to do it themselves" (or words to that effect)

So men get to do whatever the hell they like and aren't punished that much, whereas women are punished disproportionately for the tiniest discrepancies. Society expects more of women, as though they "should know better" and yet when it comes to making law and policies women "aren't fit" to know what's best for society

to clarify: they felt that somebody should uphold society's moral standards, but they couldn't be bothered to do it themselves, so they pushed that "role" onto women. We see the remnants of this today.

Ooh, that's interesting. I'm not familiar with Kate Millet, what should I be reading?

I'd argue it goes a lot further back than the Victorians, too. In medieval times, women were supposed to pray for their men - they were the conduit to God and so were meant to be immersed in religious morality, whereas their men didn't have to be so pious (they had wives for that). It might be the same thing, mightn't it?

I wasn't just shocked at the double standard: it was the way the judge could look at this one girl, and see her as a symbol of 'all that is rotten in society nowadays'. It makes me so angry.

As if men haven't been behaving like this for time immemorial! Why didn't he say 'a person with a record like this'?

Assaults on the police? 40 arrests? 29 convictions? 2 prison sentences?

This isn't someone who is being castigated for tiny discrepancies.

yes, it sounds the same. IT's as though they were freed up to drink, visit prositutes, shaft their business partner/customers... because they'd ticked the morality box by having wives who'd got it covered- or females in general could uphold the moral standards of society
Not much has changed TBH

"What should I be reading?"
'Sexual Politics' - it's an electrifying read.

That's irrelevant to this thread onimolap

The point is, onimolap, is that he's decided to say that a female who behaves like this is what is wrong with society, when, as we all know, plenty of men behave like this too.

The article says that this young woman is famous but it's the first I've read of her.

I find it sad that the tabloids and apparently the judge have taken a very black and white view of this young woman when obviously life is more complicated than that.

A very interesting article I though.

And no of course the judge shouldn't have said that. Apparently one young women liking a drink rather too much is much worse than a young man doing the same - and obviously so much worse than all the rape, murder, gang related violence etc etc etc for chrissakes.

onimo - that's not what I was getting at. Her record is terrible and I wouldn't want to excuse it at all. But I thought there was a real unpleasantness behind the judge's desire to present one woman as a symbol of 'all' that is rotten in society.

It ridiculous.

What about all the horrific violent crimes that are committed? Are they somehow not symbolic of anything wrong?

sakura - thanks!

omniolap - he also said that it was the worst record he'd seen. Really? Worse than people convicted of murder/rape/GBH/child abuse? Nobody is defending what she did - just disagreeing with what he said about her.

I think it is relevant as the judge's remarks were not quoted in full. He began by saying "I don't think I have seen a more deplorable record" (gender neutral), then there is ellipsis before the latter comment. And it is indeed a terrible record for any person so young.

ISNT - no, I hadn't heard of her before either.

I thought the most famous raucous boozers were people like that bloke who won the lottery, the footballer who burst into tears that time, alex higgins...

Am I terribly out of touch?

I see what you're saying omnio, but he does certainly say 'a female with a record like this'. He makes a point that is specifically to do with her gender.

I find 'a female' somewhat distasteful as a term in that context, but this may be because I'm not sufficiently familiar with legal language.

ISNT - I also found it odd that it was very black and white. Apparently, she wasn't destitute, abused, from a broken home (and all the other cliches) etc yet she clearly had big self-esteem issues. All very glossed over.

I mean I'm not hard pressed to think of men who have a string of alcohol related convictions behind them, but apparently all that is irrelevant because one woman behaved like that once too it's disgusting.

omnio Nah, he meant he hadn't seem a more deplorable record for a female
Men get up to much much worse than that
It's indeffensible to suggest that females have a different moral code to men, and when they do something it's worse than when men do it

Anyway I don't believe the judge when he says he's never seen such a bad record.

Maybe from women he hasn't, but I bet he's seen infinitely worse records from men.

It's quite clear. Even leaving out the first bit, the direct quote is given as "A female with a record like this ? it's absolutely despicable and represents all that is rotten in society nowadays" which clearly indicates that a man with a record like this would cause him much less concern.

Without knowing what he said in the middle (which the newspaper did not report), I wouldn't want to draw such a firm conclusion.

I think the only firm conclusion anyone is drawing, is that he shouldn't have said it.

Whcih I don't think is unreasonable.

I find it odd the way judges are allowed to say what they want about cases and the meejah report it as if it's some kind of neutral summing up, not some reactionary knee-jerk comment made from a certain very conservative (in the main) viewpoint.

Sexual politics?

I read it at Dittany's recommendation, and while it was eye-opening and interesting and very funny in parts, it was also a long and difficult read (IMO ) and had really tiny writing. Is there such a thing as an advanced book club?