Yet 'more' internet sexism - Louise Mensch sexist abuse on Twitter

[Lottapianos]

here

So sorry for Daily Fail link but I felt this story needed sharing.

Now I am no fan of Louise Mensch - I think she's a muppet for all sorts of reasons and her refusal to endorse any anti-Murdoch findings by the select committee she sat on was just about laughable.

However, this is yet another example of how commonplace it is to hurl sexist abuse at women who you don't agree with or whose views you dispute. It's nowhere near as vitriolic as the vile things that were tweeted about Ched Evans' rape victim, but to me the mindset is the same - don't like something a woman says/does, use it as an excuse to ridicule her for sharing her opinions/actions in the first place.

I'm just sick and tired of all this - some people are so hateful and it's exhausting

No, I don't think so, nor make any sexist comments as far as I am aware.

Oh Louise Mensch is perfectly ghastly. But she has a right to express her ghastliness without being threatened with violence, sexual or otherwise and without sexualised insults about what an ugly tart she is or whatever these tossers go in for nowadays, from people with penises who look like fucking gargoyles themselves, who feel entitled to reduce womento merely what they look like or whether they'd like to shag them or not. Yuk.

Worst thing about LM is that she isn't that bright or effective, but valued because of her looks -a lose-lose if you ask me!

I don't think its a coincidence that all the Conservatives on the panel LM included, did not accept the 'not fit' accusation.

I can see their point - too harsh a criticism - that he is 'unfit' despite having (rightly or wrongly, corruption or no corruption) done quite a lot that is astonishing .. (mind you I suppose gadaffi, hitler, geghis khan, Trump could be in that category! ) could lead to people defending him where they might not.

SardineQueen, I didn't think you were bossing me about! Sorry if I sounded snippy

I have reservations about the idea of quotas but at the same time, I can't see how things are supposed to ever change without them.

I'm a proud Londoner and I'm steeling myself for a Boris coronation this evening. This is the man who, according to GLA member and fellow Mayoral candidate Jenny Jones, is so foul and sexist and rude and offensive to female colleagues, that they have put in a cross-party formal complaint about him. I absolutely despair. It seems like sexism is being taken less seriously over time, even in these days when there seems to be more of it around than ever. I guess all we can do is keep shouting about it and refusing to just take it, and for that I have to say that I do grudgingly admire Louise Mensch. However, I still cannot for the life of me understand why a woman who used her name to sell shedloads of books and make a fortune, decides to give up said name and change it for her husband's name - an unfeminist POV maybe, but what can I say, it pees me off

I doubt things will change for probably a hundred years without quotas but on a purely personal level I would never ever want to benefit from them and glad I haven't (even though men have benefited from them for the past couple of millennia ).

I think that she has said herself that the books arent good, so maybe she wanted to dissociate herself from that a bit by using a different name?

There was an article in the Economist about women in politics, and that actually women who run for office do no better than male politicians, they get the same amount of donations, get the same amount of votes. They then went on to wonder why women don't run ...

Now we know the answer

For me personally, I would never ever consider going into politics, particularly as a woman. You're opening yourself up to so much scrutiny and unjustified abuse, as has been shown here.

I do applaud Louise Mensch for not shirking on this, and publicising the abuse. Name and shame.

I don't understand your first para there abs?

So if women do the same as men and get the same donations and stuff isn't that good?

Is this in the US?

Oh hold on I reread it I understand now!

Louise Mensch Twitter trolls face prosecution, says police chief

Read more: www.theweek.co.uk/politics/46631/louise-mensch-twitter-trolls-face-prosecution-says-police-chief#ixzz1tuzy27Bw

I have plenty of friends who use Twitter, but I don't like it - the nature of how it is used, and how anyone can simply drop a soundbite out there. Of late it has become filled with people imagining that they can hide behind a username to hurl abuse at someone they envy/dislike/resent/all three. As a public platform where comments are recorded, users should be aware that their comments can be and should be treated with as much accountability as leaving a written notice on the village hall noticeboard or publishing it in a newspaper - and be subject to prosecution for libel or slander if it oversteps the line. Would they be using the exact same words if they had to leave their full name and the area where they live?

As a see it, Ms Mensch was not defending Mr Murdoch per se but pointing out that the committee had not followed the proper procedure before pronouncing Rupert Murdoch "unfit" to run a media empire - a judgement that immediately made most, if not all, major newspapers and radio bulletins the next day. His newspapers may have done very, very serious crimes - phone hacking, buying and selling information, etc but Ms Mensch was not addressing those issues. As I see it, I doubt that there would have been as much personally directed abuse if Ms Mensch's point had been made by a 70 year old male MP.

It was in reference to the US elections. They've found that women candidates get the same level of donations etc. and are voted in

Will try and dig up the article.

Here it is

This in particular " Plenty of research shows that women who stand for election do just as well as their male counterparts: they raise as much money, scoop up as many votes and are no less likely to win. The problem, according to a recent study and survey by Jennifer Lawless of American University and Richard Fox of Loyola Marymount University, is that so few choose to run. Even though a record number are running for the Senate, women are competing in fewer than a third of congressional races this year."

My understanding is the same as kipperandtiger's - the conclusions about the Murdochs was actually outside the remit of the committee, according to its rules of procedure. If it had been within the remit of the committee then evidence would have been required specifically about the Murdoch's fitness to run "a global business", rather than simply about hacking and the Murdochs' role in it (which was of course only established as the hearing went on, not prior to it).

I think that the Labour members and the Liberal member who signed up to the statement about the Murdoch's unfitness were airing their anger and disgust about the Murdochs (which is understandable) but they were not acting within the remit of the committee by doing so.

Thank you grimbletart.

Just noticed one of the quotes "I'd like to hit [Mensch] in the face with a hammer" - that quote is beyond slander/libel, that's actually intimidation/threat of physical violence.

This isn't the first time Mensch has been targeted of course...

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-17671424

She has made the mistake of being female in public.

And on top of that being good looking, and confident. How dare she.

Will women never learn?

She has also made the mistake of TALKING A LOT OF TOSS ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS and BEING A MURDOCH APOLOGIST. She just won "Hero of The Week" in the Sun FFS. I wonder why? I think sexual or otherwise personal insults and horrible but you are allowed to generally criticise what people say and do. The vast majority of tweets were not personal, there are some idiots on Twitter but you just don't follow them.

The "fit and proper person" amendment was tabled on 27th March, Mensch failed to complain about this until 1st May.

But we're not talking about the normal insults, we're talking about the ones that are directed at her purely and simply because she is female

I think that there is a difference between saying that the insults are directed at her because she is female, and noting that they make reference to her being female.
I think that the main cause is as Marysbeard stated, though it is unacceptable if people are turning to threats and sexist abuse in response.

There are a few people on here who have said "I hate this woman and she deserves everything she gets and she is vain and thick and blah" and then in tiny letters (of course I don't approve of sexism).

Pathetic.

"I think that there is a difference between saying that the insults are directed at her because she is female, and noting that they make reference to her being female."

What does this even mean??? Can you give an example?

We need policies and women elected to impplement them. The only way to get that is to join soomething useable, get involved in making policy and try to get selected as a candidate. Both much easier in a group of likeminded women.