The Sydney Morning Tabloid

Like many people my opinion of the Sydney Morning Herald is getting pretty low*. But this is just too fucking much:

This fucking offensive graphic is on the front page. I bet they thought they were being clever. And the stupid article – Psychologist to help Pup shrink his problems – is about the sports psychologist who always sees them before a game:

One CA official last night said Chapman’s arrival in New Zealand had been planned prior to Clarke’s split with Bingle, but there is no doubting his brief has changed dramatically in the wake of the past week’s media circus.

Oh, Sydney Morning Herald, how I used to love you so. What happened between us? Why are you being such a sexist gutter rag?

I am this close to cancelling my subscription.

* And I’ve just ensured I’ll never work for Fairfax.

63 responses to “The Sydney Morning Tabloid

  1. Ohmigod! I cannot believe that picture- is her mouth blacked over or has it been widened? Either way what a crock!

  2. Oh jesus! because all women nag! Ughhh. People suck! I hate patriarchy! *rant, rant, rant froth at mouth, slam head on desk*

    • The sexism is getting worse, isn’t it? It’s not just me looking around and seeing that it’s shit again. A few years ago we had the start of the whole raunch culture thing, with a few articles in the mainstream media saying ‘look at these crazy kids, tut tut’. But now, it seems to have moved into pure misogyny.

  3. Strange graphic actually – I am not quite sure what they meant to achieve by it. They are trying to make her look like the mouth at Luna Park and also a bit like a ventriloquist’s dummy. Are they inferring that she is all mouth and never shuts up/sells stories to the press or are they inferring that she is dumb and a puppet (not sure who to – Max Markson perhaps)

  4. Oh looking at it again I think it might be meant to be a Monty Python rip off – is that an inference to the ‘circus’ aspect perhaps? all in all weird and offensive.

  5. Well, who wants to work for fairfax anyway…..

    • Ha, I wish it was that simple. I’m a news journo in Sydney. My options are Fairfax and News Ltd. I’m sure both places are robust enough they can handle some criticism from one teensy little blogger.

  6. I’m so annoyed with all the crap dealt to Bingle in this. I mean, sure going to the mag was always going to draw criticism, but everyone’s acting like she’s causing the Destruction of Australian Cricket and Life As We Know It!!! So over the top and frankly nothing more than thinly veiled misogyny. But I went so far as to mention that on twitter and had one of the online reporters for The West tell me I needed to do more reading. Thanks for the man’splaining dude.

    It’s incidents like this that ensure I’ll never work again in this town, anywhere. Oh well, one day I’ll get paid to blog. (Bwahahahahahah!!! Hahahaha. Like that’s ever going to happen.)

    • everyone’s acting like she’s causing the Destruction of Australian Cricket and Life As We Know It!!! So over the top and frankly nothing more than thinly veiled misogyny.

      I think its pretty clear that in this country sport (of any kind) is more important than respect for women. So sportsmen can pretty much get away with anything and have their bad behaviour rewarded.

      • Don’t worry Shiny, this whole blog ensures I’ll never work in this town again!

        And lissy, I don’t think it’s even as high as respect – I think if the choice is between sport and treating a woman fairly, then sport will always win.

      • What bad behaviour exactly? He broke off an engagement that’s all.

        • No, it’s not about Michael Clarke’s behaviour – it’s about Brendan Fevola’s behaviour: taking the photo, telling her he’d deleted it, showing it to all his mates, giving it to a journo (who then published it, which in my opinion is unacceptable).

  7. oh too true, too true ladies, in fact I don’t think this is even up for debate, there is a huge evidence base confirming that sportsmen who rape (including in packs!), abuse and generally mistreat and disrespect women are rarely convicted, especially the high profile ones. Only recently has there been some public deploring of their actions (which still doesn’t result in conviction), so they go quiet for 6-12 months all shame faced and blokey in an attempt to look stoic and then they pop back up all forgiven and fresh faced cos there is some trophy to be won.

    Then again we had a Prime Minister who wanted recognition of national sportsman to be an indication of your right to be an Australian and migrate to this country. Culture wars – bah!

    • They get in more trouble for pooing in a hotel hallway than for sexual assault. Then after a few weeks off, they get a big ‘welcome back’ on the front page of the freakin’ SMH – hello Brett Stewart.

      • So what we are saying here is that sportsMEN should have the right to a fair and equitable hearing taken away and be thrown in jail even though the evidence fails to support the charge? Chauvanism at its finest.

        • Formeryl, you know no one has said that. You’ll find that the evidence almost always supports the charge. Despite what you think, no one makes sexual assault allegations for shits and giggles because the female accuser is ALWAYS dragged through the wringer. I was attacked by a cab driver one night, who wouldn’t let me out, wouldn’t stop, and was dragging me by my leg into the front of the cab while speeding through dark streets and calling me a slut and a whore. I managed to kick him in the face and then he stopped the cab and yelled at me to get out (“filthy, dirty slut”). We were three suburbs away from my home. Then he grabbed my bag as I was leaping out – which had my keys, ID, address etc in it – and pulled it so hard it ripped in two. I grabbed what I could before he sped off. Obviously I went straight to the police station. The officer, while very sympathetic and not doubting me at all, said it wasn’t worth pressing charges because the cabbie’s lawyer would dredge up ex-boyfriends I’d had sex with (shock horror), get CCTV footage of me having a drink, and present me as a drunk slut who was making the whole thing up. And because it was a young woman against a cab driver, it would make the news. My reputation would be smeared and he’d just say I was trying to do a runner without paying. You tell me, is that fair? And I wasn’t even hurt. Unlike many many many other women who are raped and don’t press charges because it’s not worth it.

          • No that’s not fair at all (horrifying really) but whenever there is an accusation against male athletes there is a presumption of guilt. Brett Stewart (whilst he may well be found guilty when his case is heard) was suspended from play and lambasted in the media as though his guilt was assured. The Johns NZ group sex thing and the Bulldogs at Coffs Harbour thing, were investigated and those accused were found to have no criminal liability, yet thay arew all treated as though they were found guilty. Name for me one league player convisted of sexual assault in the last ten years. That’s right none. Just because they are men and the accusers are women does not make them instantly guilty. The system is designed so that guilt has to actually be proven before one can be punished and frankly to complain at the treatment of Lara Bingle in the media (who has done nothing wrong) and yet join the chorus when a male athlete is treated the same way is quite obviously sexist and hypocritical.

            • Brett Stewart was suspended because he was drunk at a work function, not because of the allegations he sexually assaulted a teenager. And when they do something wrong, male athletes are not treated the same way as Lara Bingle. They are not hounded and ridiculed. And by the way, Lara Bingle didn’t actually do anything wrong. Yes, she had a relationship with a married man years ago, and while I don’t agree with that, it’s hardly a hangable offence. The married person in any cheating situation is committing the greater wrong. As for Matty Johns and the other players – can you name a single one of them? No. You can’t. Because they were not outed in the media. No one knows who else was involved.

              No one said anything about men being instantly guilty.

            • I think your response answers some of our concerns. The issue is that cases DONT get to court in many instances, which is why there are so FEW convictions. Its a similar story with most sexual assault issues – women feel (and I think this is what NWN is trying to outline in her taxi driver assault case) it is their fault somehow (rape culture short skirt bullshit) and they are talked out of going to court. The laws may be just but the supporting system is not. Its also sometimes hard for the woman to get evidence when it is her word against theirs – it does not mean she was lying. I think the matty Johns case is a perfect example, none of them men were named but everyone with a 2c piece was coming on radio saying the girl was a slut or drunk. Can you blame her for not wanting to go through a 2 year very public court trial.

              • Well said Lexy. And while I don’t think it was my fault that the taxi driver attacked me, I was easily talked out of pressing charges.

                Over at A public blogging, Linda makes a fabulous point about sexual violence against women which I think explains why many men, formeryl included, can’t see – or don’t listen to – what we’re saying:

                But it must be so easy and effortless to dismiss or minimise sexual violence when you are statistically highly unlikely to ever experience it. I refer to what happened to Lara as sexual violence because it is just one point in a continuum of practices that women experience in a lifetime – harassment, stalking, groping, guiltsex, verbal abuse, slut-shaming, sexual assault, domestic violence, rape, date rape, gang rape, upskirting, having your sexual history used against you in the criminal or family court (feel free to add the ones I’ve left out!) and I must acknowledge Jill P-Smith here. All women experience this even if they only ever experience it by structuring their lives around avoiding it. These practices, along with the popular theory that women are actually responsible for this oppressive blanket of sexual terrorism or rape culture themselves, serve to control women’s movement, and therefore to control women.

            • “Name for me one league player convisted of sexual assault in the last ten years. That’s right none.”

              precisely the problem! A case being dismissed through lack of evidence or cos they have better lawyers is not the same as them being innocent and this may sound too blunt on my part but it is highly unlikely those girls went through all that trauma of reporting the assualt just for jolly japes.

        • No, sorry I disagree with you and I think you have misread entirely what I and NWN said. Everyone deserves a fair trial; that issue is not in contention. What we are saying is that in many cases and frequently when the perpetrator is high prolife or especially a hallowed sportsmen (you can’t deny that Australia does revere its sporting heroes – this is not necessarily a criticism but an observation) then the case does NOT get to trial (Matty Johns and countless other rugby incidents??) or if it does they find in favour of the sports hero. The women also suffers trial by media and by peers (sadly including other women). The women being drunk or flirtatious is used an explanation/blame for the attack and the whole thing is a described as ’embarrassing’ and brushed under the carpet. I notice Matty Johns has a new TV show, I hope the young lady pack raped in New Zealand gets something fabulous too – but that’s doubtful .

  8. Sing it sister.

    I think Formeryl is one of these people who imagine our gaols are just chock full of innocent men wrongly accused of rape by evil manipulative women.

    It’s a rare rapist who makes it to the questioning stage, let alone to court, let ALONE to gaol.

    Men really needn’t get all emotional over defending their right to rape with impunity – they’ve pretty much got it covered.

    • Quite wrong actually Linda, I think the gaols are full (largely and with the extremely rare exception) with guilty people, because they were found to be guilty in a court of law, that is how the system is supposed to work. My point (as explained above) is that athletes especially who are accused of such horrendous crimes are not given the basic right to be presumed innocent, simply because they are high profile men.

      • Oh and your suggestion that I am defending my right to rape with impunity is offensive and defamatory, I have advised my solicitor.

        • And no doubt your solicitor will advise you that a) Linda Radfem did not say you were a rapist, and b) since you comment under an anonymous name, you cannot be defamed. Like I said, being a journalist I know a thing or two about media law.

          • I was talking tongue in cheek (I don’t like the sue everyone culture Australia seems to be embracing with gusto) My point is that when someone tries to defend basic rights they are castigated and lumped in with the sex offenders. Frankly I think all rapists/paedophiles ought to be taken out bush and shot, however there is a process involved in determining someones guilt. Yes Lara Bingle did nothing wrong and deserves nothing like the treatment she has copped, however as far as you know Brett Stewart did nothing wrong nor did Matthew Johns, but they are painted as sexual predators without the backing of evidence (although as previously stated Stewart is yet to have his day in court and may well be guilty) Johns on the other hand did nothing wrong except adultery which is an offence to his wife I am sure but to no one else. As for it being a group sex session well it’s not my bag, but according to the evidence gathered by NZ police it was the complainants.

            • Group sex is one thing, but coercing a drunk teenager into having sex with more people than she wants too is another altogether, and that was the issue with the Matty Johns situation. It was a failure of the media that it was reported as just a ‘group sex scandal’. But I guess that makes a better headline. It wasn’t that he’d had group sex. It was about power, coercion and consent. And also a little about his team mates leaving him to take the fall. Still, it hasn’t harmed his career – he got a nice few months off, and now is back with a family show.

              As for other league players and sex assault claims, you’ll find that it’s reported very carefully. They aren’t painted as rapists in the media at all. And the initial report is always followed by a family member, or fan group, saying ‘nah, I don’t believe it for a second, he’s such a nice boy, wouldn’t hurt a fly’. Which I don’t have a problem with, it’s their right to do that, innocent until proven guilty. But I do have a problem with the suggestion that they are given a hard run in the media. They are not at all.

              • You use the same sensationalist language as the rest of the media. Whilst the complainant was technically a teenager at 19 the term conjures up images of the underaged which she was not. She wanted to do what she did, she bragged about having done so and only when her partner at the time got wind of it all did her story change. She was the predator in this case.

  9. Just to clarify (before the flaming torch wielders come marching up my driveway) I do agree that the system needs massive reform with regards to sexual assault cases:
    1. The victim should not have to face court, a video statement and cross should be sufficient.
    2. How drunk, drugged, promiscuous the victim is or was should be completely inadmissable and lawyers who attempt to raise such matters in court or the media should be found in contempt and jailed overnight/fined heavily.
    3. The victim should never be named publicly (ie in the media) either before, during or after trial regardless of its outcome (with the exception and it would be so rare as to be inconsequential, that it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the vistim made up their complaint.)

  10. And Matt Johns is about to come back on tv I believe – oh joy. So much for all the pearl-clutching footyheads pissing and moaning about his career being ruined.

    Formeryl – You’re not very well informed around issues of incarceration, I see. Guess what, mate? I am. I work for a service that supports people transitioning from gaol to community and I’ve researched, read and written extensively on the topic. My knowledge claims around this issue are superior to your’s.

    Gaols are full and by full I mean well over 80% of people charged with minor drug offences, people with backgrounds of extreme poverty, violence, child abuse, mental illness, cognitive disability and the substance addictions that go along with all that.

    Don’t defend “courts of law” to me, mate. They suck and so does the “correctional” system. It’s about social control of the community’s least privileged and least empowered.

    As Kim said, nobody called you “rapist” but it does cause me to raise an eyebrow when a bloke comments on a feminist site and proceeds to ignore the topic at hand in favour of coddling misogynist men. They don’t need you to defend them – they’re the ones with the power in the first place.

    • And this is why I love Linda… and I love you too Kim!

    • So basically you have some form of arts degree (as compared to my Law degree) and you claim the intellectual high ground regarding criminal justice. Just because someone is a drug addict, got bashed by dad, is stupid, is poor etc does not excuse them from the consequences of criminal behaviour. Incidentally I have a major mental illness and come from a poor background, so therefore by your twisted extremist logic I should be able to commit crimes with impunity. Spare me the sob stories and accept that a correctional system is necessary as are courts (the people who sit on which by the way are so intelligent as to make you look like a complete moron by comparison) and yes it is about social control, it always has been about controlling behaviour that society finds unacceptable. On your last point I thought this blog was about discussion and debate, yet typical of the feminist left you want that debate stymied.

      • Um, formeryl, Linda didn’t say that a correctional system was unnecessary, she was pointing out the problems with it. You’d be hard pressed to find someone who says there are no problems with our correctional system.

        This blog is about discussion and debate. That you are welcome here and we debate you is proof of that. However, trying to start a pissing contest about who has the best uni qualifications is just dumb.

        And by the way, you say “spare me the sob story” but yet you’ve presented us with yours. Just sayin’.

      • oh now come on:

        “So basically you have some form of arts degree (as compared to my Law degree)”

        How is this, my degree is better than your degree nonsense sensible debate? By the way have you practiced at all or just finished your degree. Also you are probably arguing with a lot of well qualified people here. NWN has about 3 degrees (which always makes me want to sing stop, in the name of love), I have 2. But it is not relevant and does not show a greater level of analysis or intellect it just means we have a degree. Most of us on here don’t actually know each other personally so to make assumptions on peoples backgrounds is folly (including Linda here too I am afraid).

        Linda your comments are great. I would also point out that from an economist rationale point of view, that prisons and subsequent recidivism levels are not a very sensible way to spend taxpayers money. It costs a lot more to incarcerate a homeless person convicted of petty theft and drug use than to provide them with affordable/social housing or appropriate supports, particularly mental health. People experiencing issues with mental health, homelessness and ex offenders cycle round the system with one factor leading to the next which lacks back to the other. Criminality should be punished but gaol is not actually always the answer here – it is ineffective and expensive and arguably people who are not high risk to society don’t need locking away to protect the community (and a stolen car is not high risk in my opinion – annoying yes but life threatening, no). Oh its all a bit crime and punishment here now isn’t it, getting all a bit Alan Jones for me!

        • Lexy, you can sing Stop in the name of love to me anytime. I won’t tell Mr Lexy.

        • Just had to add an end note that recent events prove that a stolen car IS life threatening, in fact often deadly. I might also add that if that mongrel recidivist had been shown the inside of a gaol cell instead of being given the soft treatment he did, a young innocent family (and he) would still be alive.

          • I don’t think you can use one example to prove an entire system is wrong. What it does prove is that the system isn’t perfect – which is what you and Lexy and Linda have all been saying.

            I also want to say that I hope you don’t feel that you aren’t welcome here. We might not always agree, but I’ve enjoyed discussing a range of topics with you.

  11. I don’t claim any high ground at all, fyl! I claim experience and knowledge around a particular issue – you can allow yourself to be enlightened or not.

    “Incidentally I have a major mental illness and come from a poor background”

    And were you not by happy circumstance randomly born into a cultural division which is also the one that just happens to dominate this planet, these two factors would have increased your likelihood of incarceration quite dramatically.

    Instead, you managed to get through a law degree (and one with capital letters no less!) and it would seem, a Phd in intellectual snobbery as well! I’m afraid that doesn’t impress me very much, knowing as I do that social privilege rather than merit are often the segues into such achievement.

    Now, on to the enlightenment –

    When lefty morons like me talk about the social factors that increase a person’s chances of being locked up, what we’re saying is that a lot of work needs to be done to level out the social playing field so that people who are vulnerable can stay out of gaol, and gaols can be places by which to protect the community from the truly heinous and predatory types (who currently make up about 12% of the prison population.

    What we’re not saying, is that people should be able to commit offences with impunity, and frankly, I have to wonder how you got through that degree if your reading comprehension is really that bad.

    Now, having said that, people with social power are the people who get to decide what is acceptable behaviour and what is an “offence”. Those people are people like you, and the reason the gaol population has increased by 60% over the last ten years or so is because people like you have power to change laws, not because there is any increase in crime.

    If people like me held the balance of social power we might want to make it a crime to say, eat meat, so therefore anyone who eats meat can immediately be painted as criminal. Criminal offending is very much a social construct and is used by people like you to maintain the social order.

    In 18th c. England, for example, they made it a crime to sleep in public – therefore the people who were homeless were automatically “criminal”. Do you see what they did there? People in power still have the power to define who is acceptable and who is not. There is no concrete definition of “criminality”.

    There is also the issue of racist/sexist attitudes of hired law enforcement thugs, but I’ll save that for another day.

    Over the last few days you’ve consistently used violent and abusive language on this blog, if you’ll excuse my paraphrasing:

    “If I were to kick a pregnant woman in the stomach”

    “Pedos should be taken out back and shot”

    “complete moron”

    I’d say it’s you trying to silence people, not me.

    • Linda Radfem, I love you.

    • ‘And were you not by happy circumstance randomly born into a cultural division which is also the one that just happens to dominate this planet’ Wow thanks for the update I was till now unaware that Murri were the worlds dominant people.
      By the way social privelege was not my segue into achievement, hard work was. Thank you.

  12. Men dominate the world! You wouldn’t be trying to stymie debate or anything would you, fyl?

    • Being male isn’t cultural it’s sexual and your argument was that had I not been born into a cultural division et al so by your reasoning, given my disadvantages, had I been a woman I would have gone to prison by now. Are you seriously suggesting that women are over-represented in the correctional system? Indigenous people are and that was the smarmy point you were trying to make until you realised that I am not in fact a white devil as you thought. I have never been to prison because I don’t commit crimes it is as simple as that. The real problem with the system (from a murri perspective) is not the police, the correctional system or the white political system. It is bleeding heart social workers like yourself that keep telling my people that no matter what, it is always someone elses fault. It’ s the governments fault you robbed that bloke, it’s just that the white legal system doesn’t understand your culture. This victim mentality must stop amongst my people if we are ever to advance to social and economic parity. I have had enough of Linda Radfem and her ilk lecturing from their snooty feminazi pedastals and have therefore decided that this will be my last post here or anywhere. I have come to the realisation that I have more important things to do than debate rubbish with halfwits. Say what you like about me in response to this, I don’t care I won’t be reading it. My final points are these:
      1. it is not simply people with social power who decide what is unacceptable (at least not since universal suffrage) it is all electors that is all citizens over the age of 18 years, who elect people (granted with some degree of social advantage) to represent them in parliament. I being without that apparent social advantage and not being a member of parliament have no more say in the making of laws in this country than you.
      2. Your comments about racist/sexist law enforcement thugs is simply without basis and has been since at least as far back as the early 80’s. Sure there would be some racist cops and some sexist ones, just as there are racist and sexist bank managers, university lecturers, auto mechanics and pastry chefs. The ‘thug’ label is pure rubbish and you know it. If you don’t I suggest a quick trip to Dili where the police have no control over crime or else just shut your mouth and keep passing out the tissues to societies rejects yourself included.

      • Ok kids, play nicely. Formeryl, there’s to be no name calling, and no telling someone to shut their mouth. And Linda, Lexy’s point about making assumptions about people’s backgrounds is important. It’s tempting to attack each other, but that won’t get us anywhere – Formeryl will go off in a huff saying all feminists are unreasonable man-haters, and Linda will go off in a huff saying all men are unreasonable woman-haters, and neither will engage with the other again. Which isn’t where we want to be.

  13. To me it’s reasonable to make a few basic assumptions about people who come trolling in feminist spaces and spewing conservative right wing and anti-feminist rhetoric.

    Sorry Kim, if he’s welcome here then it’s your call obviously, but he sure hasn’t approached any conversation here in good faith. He came here looking for a fight and once he got it he turned on the abuse. In fact, his abuse makes this an unsafe space for me now.

    • Linda, I’m really sorry you feel that way. I don’t want this to be an unsafe place for any woman. You are always welcome here and I hope you don’t go. (I’m writing a post on it.)

      I’ve just read back over the comments on this post and formeryl does seem very troll-y. However, it would be unfair of me not to point out that he’s been coming here for a while and, on the whole, has been open to lively discussion and agreed with us on many things. Although his comments on this post were angry and itching for a fight. And he got it. And he didn’t like it.

      I let the two of you argue because I found the debate really interesting and very informative. As moderator, I should have stepped in earlier and calmed things down.

    • I am sorry if I have made you feel unsafe here on the interwebs Linda. I can sort of understand as I live within viewing distance of Long Bay and around many centres where ex convicts are assisted back into society. Sometimes this isn’t a successful operation and those that do reoffend quite often do so in the local area, which is why my house has been burgled (with my children at home) no less than 6 times and my car has been nicked more times than I can count. What I am saying is that I feel unsafe in my home which is my sanctuary and it is unpleasant and if this is your sanctuary and I have crossed that line from uncomfortable questioning of your ideas to bullying then I am sorry. Be that as it may I shall delete my blog (seeing as no-one actually reads or comments on it) as soon as I figure out how to and I’ll be out of your hair. Obrigado.

  14. Oh and I was never looking for a fight just pointing out the right to presumption of innocence is universal, sports ‘stars’ included that was all it just seemed to fire some of you up that I could even suggest that someone would make false allegations about rape. However whilst that may not occur what does occur is that on occasion the evidence doesn’t support a charge or conviction. Sometimes when it does horrible injustices occur see David Dougherty in NZ in the 90’s and for many examples of this. The age old legal premise is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. This is Blackstones ratio.

    • It did seem like you were looking for a fight. I assumed you were drunk, since you were commenting in the wee hours of the morning!

      Horrible injustices do occur, as you and Linda and Lexy all pointed out. And of course there will be more instances of this in the US because they have a much larger population.

      I’m sure you saw yesterday that the Brett Stewart case is going to court because there’s enough evidence to convict him.

      • No don’t drink much these days just a night owl. Cranky over work stuff not the fault of anyone here obviously. I am glad the Stewart case is proceeding and that it is on the basis of evidence. If he is guilty then he will hopefully get what he deserves which will never be enough (but mandatory minimum sentences for violent crimes are another topic altogether) Someone above asked if I ever practiced no I have not as after 5 years of dry reading I asked myself if this is what I wanted to do every day for the rest of my life and the answer was a resounding no. In any case do you know how I can delete my profile so I can leave you all alone?

        • I know what you mean about not wanting to do something you’ve spent years studying – I felt like that after doing my psych degree.

          I don’t know how you can delete your profile, but I also don’t think you should. Stick with your blog and find more blogs to comment on so people know about you. Regular readers will come. And for every hundred visitors, you’ll get a couple who comment. Write something on your about page so new readers can get a sense of who you are and why they should come back. (Sorry if I’m teaching you how to suck eggs here…)

          And it’s shit when work crap spills over into the rest of your life.

  15. I’m not much of a fan of the “universalising from personal experience” style of arguing, fyl. I find it emotive and a little disingenuous. But conservatives and reactionaries like yourself seem to love it.

    So with that in mind, and given the high rates of sexual assault and other violence against women, you might want to consider that any given time you decide to argue with women about this, you are highly likely going to be arguing with people who have experienced it themselves.

    The number of men who get away with sexual violence far outweighs the number who are wrongly accused. There are also plenty of MRA sites where you can go and moan about the poor menz, but in feminist spaces those views are never acceptable.

  16. This might be of interest to you, fyl.

  17. She just doesn’t get it. Never did I bemoan poor menz as she puts it but advocated a long held legal presumption. But I guess I’m still looking for a fight and should just accept that an allegation should be enough to put someone away for years. That may wash in say Afghanistan or China but not in western democracies. I don’t think all feminists hate men but Linda radfem obviously does.

    • Ok, I published your comment but it comes with a warning. You are either unwilling or unable to listen to anyone else’s opinion. Again and again, we have said that no one should be locked up simply because they are accused of sexual assault. And yet you keep ignoring us. Why?

      I also have to put my foot down and insist you play by the rules as outlined in my comments policy. I let you get away with telling another commenter to shut her mouth, and that she’s a reject, because you were a little ganged up on and seemed to panic. I should have enforced my policy earlier. Let me be clear on this: there’s to be no more bullshit about feminazis, or any other name calling, or personal attacks. When you make personal attacks you make it very difficult for me to allow you to comment here. I don’t think I’m being unreasonable. In fact, I know I’m being too lenient. It’s important to me that I’m not just preaching to the converted here, but you’re putting me in a difficult situation – if I let you stay because of some lofty ideal I have about making people realise that feminism is very relevant and that sexist is rampant in the media, I’ll lose some of my female readers. So you’re now on probation. Your comments may or may not be published, on a whim.

      You say your comments are about legal rights, yet in several places on this blog you have mocked women who report sexual assault. You have called them sluts who changed their mind because they didn’t want their boyfriend to find out. You’ve also said you don’t know how to act around women at work in case they say you’re harassing them. Either you’re really creepy, or really confused. I think it’s the latter.

      When I re-read your comments on this post, you come across as a troll. Yet you and I have had some good discussions on this blog, so I’d like to believe you are not a troll. I encourage you to check out that link to Feminism 101 that Linda posted above. And keep in mind that if you want to continue to hang out in feminist spaces, then telling women they’re dumb will earn you a swift kick in the virtual balls.

  18. By the way, fyl, that Feminism101 site is there exactly for people who have disrupted discussions with very cliched anti-feminist statements. It’s so women can get on with the discussion without having to stop and play teacher about the same principles over and over. I strongly suggest you go read it.

    • How very condescending

      • No formeryl, it is very condescending of you to keep ignoring what we are saying to you. I think I have been very reasonable. I suggest you read back over all the comments on this post. The way I see it, you have two choices: you can go away and grumble about feminists ganging up on you, without having any sort of self-awareness, or you can check out Feminism 101 and maybe learn something.

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s