This Brick person. Has the world (and specifically this bit of it) gone completely barking mad?

[ReactionaryFish]

So some silly attention-seeker writes some daft article which endorses a whole load of unpleasant misogynist attitudes about valuing women purely on the basis of their looks.
And MN responds to this by .... about 30 000 threads endorsing precisely the same attitudes by attacking this woman for her looks.
Not very bright, is it?

Of course if someone says the are something they aren't, people will snigger at them. It's human nature! British people don't like people who "blow their own trumpets", most especially if what they are bragging about isn't actually true.

But like I say I haven't read the articles or threads, so probably not qualified to comment.

I also don't like the idea that women on MN reacting as comes naturally to them, at an article which has apparently pushed a lot of buttons, makes them "unintelligent".

The article and the publication have a remit to strongly provoke, they have obviously succeeded with this, if ordinary people react as the paper hopes they would then that is just normal and bogstandard surely?

Is this another "these comments let down the whole of womankind" type idea? Because I think that is unfair.

OP do you really think that women reacting as comes naturally makes them undignified and unintelligent?

Well, the same author recently wrote an article about how she flirts for favours. As several commentors pointed out, that's probably what other women dislike about her.

Wouldn't it be better if articles weren't published that deliberately inflamed people's insecurities that are encouraged by society from birth?

I find this thread a bit odd and nasty actually.

I find this thread [deliberately?] unnecessary, given the intelligent debate on other threads about the Daily Mail stitch-up of its freelance writer and its readership.

She is a grown up. She does not need protecting from those who pay her. She knows what she's doing and perhaps it will help her financial position.

Anyway
Read this piece by Tim Dowkling for a cheering up view of the situation.
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/04/samantha-brick-hated-good-looks

"OP do you really think that women reacting as comes naturally makes them undignified and unintelligent?"

I'm astonished that this question can even be asked. "Natural" reactions come in all shapes and forms; for some people, the natural reaction to an insult or offence is to smack the offender in the mouth. that would be, as well as unintelligent and undignified, criminal. And rightly.
saying that a reaction is natural cannot excuse it if it is wrong. I'm amazed this even needs saying.

So you think that thousands of women are undignified, unitelligent and not very bright. For reacting to a provocative piece designed to make them react in that way, the way that they have been moulded to react by their society.

I think it is astonishing that you are so ready to be so nasty about such a large group of people. Saying on an internet forum "she's not very good looking" or whatever it is they are saying is not akin to punching someone in the face or indulging in other illegal activities. I am surprised at the comparison.

I think your views about lack of dignity should be aimed at the sections of the media who exploit and propogate these pervasive ideas, rather than at women who when poked on a sore spot react in a predictable manner.

As I said on another earlier thread, I'm happy heaping my denigration onto the Daily Mail for this.

I think that's the right place for it, linerunner.

No, I think thousands of women - and men - have behaved in a way which is undignified and unintelligent. And I confess I was surprised to find it here - I'd have expected better. Usually a healthy degree of scepticism vis a vis the DM and its works prevails in these parts.

The fact that you attack this point of view as "nasty", yet are prepared to defend the uncontrolled outpouring of bile against Ms Brick, strikes me as peculiar to say the least.

Your posts come across as slightly aggressive RF, I'm not sure if that is intended?

I haven't read any of the threads in question but would be surprised if any of them are here in Feminism - have you read them here?

"Usually a healthy degree of scepticism vis a vis the DM and its works prevails in these parts."

What you are posting has nothing to do with scepticism of the DM at all.

I do think that a conversation about why so many on MN have responded so strongly to this article and what that says about the media and society etc would be interesting. Linerunner indicates that these conversations have happened elsewhere.

A thread started in Feminism which seems to be here in order to call women who have reacted to this article thick etc is somewhat less interesting and I wonder what prompted it.

I see your point Reactionary but the thing is, she was telling us a story about how tough it is being beautiful. We just pointed out that she wasn't, really. that is all.

If she'd written an article telling us that she was a fabulously talented playwright/artist/musician, and then showed/played us examples of her work and we unanimously thought they were crap to mediocre, the reaction would be the same (although I suspect we'd be a bit less interested generally).

I think Getorf's analysis of the DM is spot on though. In common parlance she was done up like a kipper. Serves her right for not seeing it coming though. Pride comes before a fall. I imagine she feels a bit silly and a bit shaken up now.

There is nothing remotely aggressive about my posts. What you mean is you don't agree.
I have indeed seen some of the remarks of which I am critical here in this section. What I haven't seen is many people recognising that reacting to the article by slagging off her looks perpetuates precisely the same shitty values as the article itself does. Which surprises me. But then I've also noticed that quite a few of the stalwarts of this section aren't very vocal atm, which might explain it.

And I haven't called anyone thick. Kindly stop misrepresenting me.

Well you said 'not very bright is it?' which is sort of the same as saying we were a bit thick for contributing.

I agree with the op. My colleagues were talking about the reaction to her article and my gut reaction was to feel very sorry for this woman. And I do think people who post comments saying the same thing as thousands of others is not very intelligent. And that the comments about this woman were offensive and out of proportion to her daft article.

And there have been discussions on MN in droves about the manipulation by the Daily Mail of this woman, the readership, and women.

Not very bright
Unintelligent
Undignified

Hardly glowing praise is it!

"What I haven't seen is many people recognising that reacting to the article by slagging off her looks perpetuates precisely the same shitty values as the article itself does. " Well of course they do. But where did people get these attitudes in the first place? You need to tackle the cause, not the symptom.

I hate to point out the obvious, Hilly, but you'd be right if I'd said "not very bright are they?" But I didn't.
I'm also slightly bemused by the defence that people were only reacting as the DM wanted them to - when people are manipulated by trash media into this sort of behaviour, those who manage not to be are entitled to be critical.

But why do all the women on MN (thousands of them) need to be dignified and post intelligently at all times, and turn the other cheek to media attempts to provoke them?

It seems like a very high standard to set. The knee jerk reaction of many posters was, it seems, a strong one and not a very edifying one. Why not ask why that is (as linerunner says in happening elsewhere). Starting a thread in feminism to call women thick seems a little provocative in itself.

Oh I see you feel superior to the women who reacted as they did.
And you want a clap on the back for rising above it all and remaining dignified.

Well done you