Not all women

[phoolani]

Reading yet another feminism thread that didn't hit double figures replies before someone interjected with 'notallmen...' And the original post didn't even talk about all men, just about 'so many men...'
Have you ever seen an opposite example? Of men interjecting a 'notallwomen' in anything disparaging women as a whole?
I had a quick Google and came back with nothing.

cadno way to miss a point

I have no issue with the use of the words: I am a mother, daughter, sister and wife. I strongly object to the fact men only care about women in terms of our relationship to them, the whole "women are your mothers and sisters" "how would you feel if someone did that to your daughter" crap.

How about: women are people who deserve to be treated equally. End.

Here's an example
Headline and first paragraph all about the father.
First third makes it sound as if someone has broken in and brutally murdered them.
But! It was the dad who "innocently took the lives" of the children.
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/father-children-murder-suicide-theme-park-deaths-pennsylvania-us-mark-short-a7197006.html

cadno way to miss a point [confused[

Nah ... way to disrupt discussion by playing dumb more like ...

Devi I don'the see any problem with the article. The focus is very much on humanising the victims. Granted I have no idea what 'innocently took the lives' means, but that was in a statement quoted from the District Attorney.

And it emphasises from the start that the guy was a domestic abuser.

You must be reading a different article to me there Josef, the one I read didn't say that at all. It says they were having domestic issues (separating) not that he was a domestic abuser.

Ok fair point, but I'd say 'having domestic issues with her husband' strongly implies something like that. The Washington Post canot legally make unproven statements. All they can do is report the facts and give a slant - and the slant here is very much in favour of the victims and gives the impression that the guy was violent and something should have been done about him before this awful thing happened.

I can't see anything wrong with it.

Then you haven't read many articles about family annihilation, Josef

I can see lots wrong with that article. At least it refers to the woman by her name mostly. But it is written so sympathetically towards the murderer, who killed 4 people, 3 of them children. The article should be about the woman victim, so the headline should be something like "Megan Short and her children killed by family-annihilator husband", followed up by an explanation of who she is, and the section about her daughter being in the news previously for the heart transplant. To start with "Father found dead with 3 children" makes no mention of the woman and also makes it seem like it could have been an accident or a stranger murder. Which is odd when the authorities made a statement saying they believe the man to be responsible who then took his own life.

It really doesn't Josef.

Even in articles that do mention the violent man near the top, it's generally in order to mention that the victim had done something to deserve it... like leave.

Well what were they supposed to have said? It was a news report in a national paper. They reported the bare facts, they got a quote from an official in charge and they referred back to a history of domestic abuse allegations (which they needn't have done).

I'm not saying there are not dodgy articles which make men who murder their families into excusable victims, but this isn'the one of them as far as I can see.

It was a story that could quite possibly not have featured in the Independent's US version at all; but if you click on the journalists name, you'll see she has a track record of reporting incidents of violence against women. Which is obviously really good.

Oh for heaven's sake

What do you think about my alternative headline?

Hi everyone,
It's being reported that this is a TAAT but we think that it's a little bit more nuanced than that, so we are happy to let it continue. Could you, if possible, help us out by not referring to the specifics of the thread that inspired this one? Many thanks.

Josef the coverage of the Clodagh Hawe murder is a clearer example of this phenomenon, if you don't think this specific example has any issues.

How odd HelenMNHQ, because it really isn't.

And it's going to be quite difficult not to refer to the specifics of whichever thread that's supposed to have inspired this one, given that that will preclude us from referring to pretty much any thread on FWR right now.

Assassinated I have no doubt there are lots of examples of the kind of the thing you mean, just that this isn't one of them as far as I can tell.

Can you see the difference between the headline of the article, and the one I suggested, Josef?

Sorry what alternative headline? I missed that..

It's in my post at 9.24.

I agree the woman should have been mentioned in the headline. That does seem wrong, and odd. But they cannot have used the headline you suggested because they do not have the legal authority to 100% assert that that was what happened. Of course that is what did happen, but a newspaper can only report the facts as they present themselves.

It's the same with anything else. The Independent will not report 'Evil religious zealot massacre's 40 people' even though that is almost certainly what happened. They'll report '40 people killed in Berlin. 26 year old man charged'.

More emotive language concerning the motivations of a perpetrator would be more appropriate to a comment piece or a lengthier investigation.

So chuck in the word "allegedly" or "believed" to cover the legalities. The point is that "Father found dead" is focusing on the man and being overly sympathetic to him.

But anyway, it's a phenomenon that exists. The Clodagh Hawes case being a clear recent example of this.

yet you are on fire the last couple of days

Mmmm tempted to blame the hormones - but fuck it - I'm just angry right now and I'm going to own it. Really, really fucking angry at being an activist for some 30 years and seeing women's rights would back and having to fight the same old battles with whingy, whiny individual men who pretend to be tacitly supportive (just politely questioning and oh so reasonable) but who are actually patronising and supercilious and think that they are entitled to women's time and energy and that we owe it to them to keep explaining our position (which they will ever-so-politely refuse to consider as valid from the mighty heights of their male privilege).

Oh I don't know. The fact is that some people were found dead with no surviving witnesses. In the course of the article the journalist goes on to outline evidence which very strongly suggests that the woman was in an abusive marriage and the guy was almost certainly responsible for murdering her and his children.

It's just a journalistic convention.

www.gwinnettdailypost.com/local/mother-two-children-found-dead-in-norcross-home/article_0de777ea-ac7d-509c-9f1c-061d09a0f8d0.html

I for one have no time for excuses being made for family annihilators - people who are almost always men. There's usually some crap about them having mental health problems. I don't see any evidence of that here though.

Lol, YetAnothet, it's almost Pavlovian.