Celebrity incidents - men and women

[stopwaitingforpermissiontobeyou]

Off the back of the Amber Heard/Johnny trial.

It put me in mind of the Ryan Thomas/Roxanne Pallett incident.

Peter Andre in the press today, having once again been shamed by Rebekah Vardy, after she made comments about his anatomy (as Peter himself says, the other way round there would be outrage). Peter will be mocked, on social media and I'm sure it will be mentioned here, about him being a snowflake, poor him, etc etc.

When men, and I mean specifically in the public eye, do something towards a woman they are (rightly so) addressed for it on social media.

But when it's a woman? Particularly with Roxanne and Amber, people continue to make excuses for them, stick up for them and find ways to make it the fault of the man.

There is a huge disparity between how men and women are treated in the public eye.

remember, Depp lost a libel trial here in the UK. The court found that the Sun were correct to refer to him as a domestic abuser.

the fact that he is a domestic abuser is now a matter of record. I therefore find the bias of pretty much every other website on the internet in his favour far more puzzling than I find your perceived bias that Mumsnet is in Amber Heard's favour. (I dunno if Mumsnet is or not, I don't 'do' the rest of the site really).

there are daily threads on here about how dreadful men are

yes indeed. sometimes it's even apparent that the men being discussed are, in fact dreadful

I'm just saying, in response to another poster who said that such content if posted by men wouldn't be tolerated, that it's extremely easy to prove that isn't true

That I get. But we dont judge women as indicative of a class. Amber and Roxanne are liars. But if I was to use either as an example that women do lie, I'd be lynched. However if it came to something like a view about trans, its perfectly acceptable to hold up an article about a man in america as indicative of the views and behaviours of all men..

@BernardBlackMissesLangCleg he isn't though. They had a toxic and abusive relationship but some of her allegations are not true. I gave an example of why I think Mn is pro amber.

When men, and I mean specifically in the public eye, do something towards a woman they are (rightly so) addressed for it on social media. But when it's a woman?

People have said they don't think this is the case. You've then said:

However if it came to something like a view about trans, its perfectly acceptable to hold up an article about a man in america as indicative of the views and behaviours of all men...

How is that in any way related to your original query?

You've added trans debates into a thread that wasn't about trans people - in fact your original post you asked people their thoughts about men "specifically in the public eye". You then used Johnny Depp, Peter Andre and Ryan Thomas in your example. All biological men.

I can't think of any trans women or trans men who have done something that people have then 'held up as indicative of the behaviours of all men'?

So did you really want to start a debate about trans people being held to a different standard, rather than biological men vs biological women being held to a different standard? If so probably just say that at the start next time?

he isn't though

he is though

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depp_v_News_Group_Newspapers_Ltd#:~:text=The%20article%20claimed%20that%20Depp,to%20be%20%22substantially%20true%22.

the high court says so

yes their relationship looks to have been bloody awful. yes, my understanding is she behaved awfully too

but why the reluctance to admit that he's a domestic abuser? if Amber Heard is one too, does that make him not abusive in some way?

Trans was an example of a topic on feminism at tbe moment. My point was if one man did something its held up as all men.

I dont need moderated on what to say on my own thread.

The reason that's snowballed is because hes denying the lies she made up about him.

I dont think he would ever deny being a toxic addict.

I dont think he would ever deny being a toxic addict.

but that isn't what the Sun called him, and what the High Court found to be substantially true is it?

they called him a domestic abuser. he is a domestic abuser

why do you struggle to say that?

is this whole thread intended to prove NAMALT?

I bloody know that

I'm married to a man. I have a father, brothers, sons and male friends who I variously love and like.

I expect most of the women who routinely comment on this board also have men in their lives that they love and value.

It doesn't mean some men aren't shits though. and it doesn't mean women don't face systematic oppression either.

@stopwaitingforpermissiontobeyou

My point was if one man did something its held up as all men.

Have you seriously not heard the endless chorus of "Not All Men" / NAMALT all over social media and in real life?

I dont need moderated on what to say on my own thread.

I'm not trying to moderate you, I replied to a post with my opinion on your point of view, as you have done to mine - as is the purpose of a forum. I pointed out that bringing up the issue of trans women in response to people discussing your position that men are hard done by in the media / public opinion didn't seem to have anything to do with the topic being discussed.

You don't own the thread, it's on a public discussion forum.

I was being flippant, because I'm so bored by the MN concept that if you dont agree that women have it much worse than men, you are a misogynist.

Alright, let's not be flippant. Abuse kills women, many women. And children. Therefore taking domestic abuse by men to women seriously is important. As PP said, Depp has been found by a Court to have been abusive. Therefore despite Heard's abuse of him (which is not actually the subject of the current court case) he is dangerous to her. I'm not actually #TeamAmber by the way. I think this is just a very dysfunctional relationship of codependent addicts/narcs playing out in Court because they have money. In another life they'd be screaming at each other in a park, waving bottles of White Lightning.

We can't actually compare like-for-like in the media because there aren't lots of sexually abusive rapist and pedophile women still working like Roman Polanski and Mike Tyson (to name a tiny number). If there were, I suppose you could say women have it better.

So a thread purportedly about how men and women are treated differently in the public eye is in reality about the OP being so bored by the MN concept that if you dont agree that women have it much worse than men, you are a misogynist? Not really a thread posted in good faith is it?

The wonderful Maya nailed it years ago when she said:
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time they post anti women tirades on Mumsnet

Because he isnt in tbe sense that she is arguing. She is lying.

It's hardly an anti woman tirade.

You cant have it both ways. I am told daily on these boards when I attempt to discuss men that its whataboutery and that if I was to discuss it in my own thread people would take it in good faith

You've proved otherwise.

Anti women is a ridiculous expression. I'm a woman with female best friends and female family.

You prove my point

Could you imagine that a man took a court case out against a woman, accused her of lying, mocked her mother and her children, told outright and proven lies and then I said ah well despite his abuse to her it's not about that?

Could you imagine? I'd be banned!

Yes, I was pro namalt, and it got absolutely slaughtered on here. So does that not prove my point?

I used trans as a topical point. I could have used the namalt campaign.

You keep saying that, but haven't proved anything. You are so invested in your own agenda, you can't follow what other people are actually saying.

ah

so I have to believe you and not the high court?

why are you so invested in people believing what you think they should believe and behaving as you think they should behave?

Could you imagine that a man took a court case out against a woman, accused her of lying, mocked her mother and her children, told outright and proven lies and then I said ah well despite his abuse to her it's not about that?

I'm really struggling to understand what you want.

is the problem that people don't share your opinion about Amber Heard and you think they should?

what is it that you want to be able to say that you fer you'll be banned for?

Imagine men dragging women to court yada yada...

''Ministers will also make it easier for judges to issue barring orders which prevent abusive ex-partners from repeatedly dragging their victims back to court – which can be used as a form of continuing domestic abuse.''
www.gov.uk/government/news/major-overhaul-of-family-courts-to-protect-domestic-abuse-victims

Amber said she was beaten by Johnny and used a concealer to hide the bruises during an interview.

The brand came forward to say this particular concealer hadn't been made yet.

'Yadda yadda yadda'

Another example.

If the woman had several attempts at taking a man to court for abuse, would you be so flippant?

No.

No because 99 percent of social media backs Johnny.

I dont want to say anything. I'm pointing out the double standards.

My thread is to point out that these boards, as a whole treat womenin tbe public eye differently to men. That's been proved in this very thread.

Could you imagine that a man took a court case out against a woman, accused her of lying, mocked her mother and her children, told outright and proven lies and then I said ah well despite his abuse to her it's not about that? Could you imagine? I'd be banned!

His abuse of her is LITERALLY what the case is about. Literally. In fact since she didn't name him, you could argue that it's about whether she's been abused ever by anyone. And no, you wouldn't be banned. Of course you wouldn't.

I'm not sure you're following what people are saying so much as seeing what you want to see.

99 percent of social media backs Johnny

Public opinion isn't what I base my own thoughts on. Particularly not social media.