I think some people need to think hard about some of the posts going up.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
The level of misogyny on these pages has just ramped up several notches.
(49 posts) (12 voices)
-
It can work if done carefully, likewise with racist terms, if putting it as someone else's words - but it mustn't be a habit, or offend any female or person of colour
For example, this got on the FP:
http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=26334
I'm rather concerned about one particular individual persistently making jokes about murder, rape, sexuality, etc as well as misogyny - just to get attention. It becomes almost an obscene fascination with some
They're not funny, never will be, and will never be accepted, so why bother?
PS
I guess the problem is that if someone gets it right, then the next person & the next & the next ...Posted 4 weeks ago # -
it's just reflex white male privilege in action.
Yes, of course. Several wives will have been murdered by their husbands since whatshername was murdered. But no-one mentions this because they don't matter - after all, that's happening all the time; there's more than 80 of them a year - boring (as compared with the tiny number murdered by complete strangers - so they are news).
As for men who get murdered on the street - far more than women - bollosck to them, they're only men (boring, and don't make pretty front page pictures) so don't discuss their deaths at all.
Remember, what's important is always to jump on the bandwagon; to concentrate on fashionable campaigns, not the most crucial, important (and boring) issues.
If something makes headlines, it's because it's unusual (and therefore by definition affects a tiny number of people). Far bigger problems affect hundreds (thousands) of people but are ignored. Like child abuse - usually carried out within families - so it's only the small number of children abducted and/or attacked by strangers that everyone (well, brain-dead tabloid readers) worry about.
I really would have expected better from NewsBiscuit readers, but I was probably probably being optimistic.
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
I think it helps explain why NB struggles to attract a wider audience
Things rarely get shared on social media- virtually nothing on Facebook
People don't want to be associated with it anymore
The book struggled to sell
Very few new contributors
Most of the big hitters have left
We are down to a handful of regular contributors now
Swamping the board with a barrage of shite every day has become a very effective way of taking control
Why would anybody want to waste their time on this relentless drivel
Most of the people who had something positive to offer have given up or moved on
It has been hollowed out
What does the future hold
The return of misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, racism is well under way - a little bit here, a little bit there - creeping back in
JOF gave us all a wonderful opportunity to have a bit of fun, develop writing skills
It has descended into joyless rants and lazy sloganeering
Tickers rule - tickers have ruined the 'writers room'
Phil Neville played 59 times for England ....Matt Le Tissier played 8Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Not getting shared on social media is not necessarily a criticism. The algorithms that drive social media respond to things that are shocking, contentious and liable to cause heated debate.
I suspect if we were openly xenophobic, homophobic, etc we would get a much greater readership. Our posts that go viral are often down to good timing rather than quality.Having waded through the last 15 years of stories, I would say our current published stories are as strong as they have ever been. Although that's not to say we cannot be better or have a greater variety of voices.
((Phil Neville seems like a nice guy though.))
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Comparing our front page to The Mash, I don't see a huge difference...
MASH
Register dissent by writing a letter in your head: Priti Patel’s guide to reasonable protesting
A single Pritt Stick, and other things delivery drivers have risked their lives to bring you
Six things to not understand about Bitcoin
How to disconnect from nature post-lockdown
Royal Family only family without racists in it
NEWSBISCUIT
Qanon conspiracy theory leads to increases in public indecency
Bez agrees to be vice-chancellor of university of manchester
New evidence reveals victim of pigeon sh*t chased pigeons as a child
Remember your face is reversed in a mirror: a handy guide to diy dentistry
Met police kettle mothering sunday picnic
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Level-headed common sense as ever from Wren.
_ _ _Regarding 'misogyny': this has clearly become the fashionable new allegation to replace 'racism', now that that allegation has been called out as an all-purpose, meaningless accusation to shout at anyone who presents you with views (on any topic) which you do not agree with, but which you find yourself unable to refute.
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
My very point
You defend the water carrier but fail to grieve the wasted genius.
Its why string cheese is more popular than White Lake Sheep Rustler
It's why some people have spent 4400+ hours logged on to Newsbiscuit.
That's 184 days
That's 26 weeks
It's why Boris Johnson will spunk £16bn restocking his dildo drawPosted 4 weeks ago # -
Both the "misogyny" and "racism" boxes can be ticked at the same time, of course. Likewise for laughing at foreigners, disabled people, sexual offences, murder, etc
These boxes can all be ticked at the same time. Some deranged people even like to tick the lot
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Why did the woman cross the road'
Who cares and what was she doing out of the kitchen? A typical example of a misogynist 'joke' but it raises the question of the intention, is it to reinforce such ideas or to mock and ridicule them with a reductio ad absurdum argument. Johnny Speight and Warren Mitchell both hated Alf Garnett but created the character to be ridiculed. Both acknowledged the problem that some took Alf to be a hero. On balance I think the overall effect, particularly among younger viewers was positive i.e. totally against Alf's ideas.Posted 4 weeks ago # -
I completely agree, Myke; sometimes it's good to set up a character to be shot down, but only by someone who's thought it through
However, given the total lack of empathy frequently shown here about race, women, sexuality, murder, rape, disabled folk, etc, etc by Titus, it's probably best to play safe around these topics - it only encourages him to come up with even more demeaning & insulting attempts at humour
If it becomes a habitual misjudgement, I think it reflects on all of us
I'm pleased the duty editors are all careful about what is elevated to the Front Page
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Wikipedia gives a fair definition: Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. It enforces sexism by punishing those who reject an inferior status for women and rewarding those who accept it. Misogyny manifests in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification
You are literally arguing that the only harassment against women that counts is murders, and more men are murdered than women (which you imply is a more "crucial, important" issue). So that's androcentrism covered.
You've made this reductive argument using a straw-man to misinterperate what has brought women (and people who care about them) together after this murder, and what they are protesting against. Two of these are:
- pervasive harassment. 80% of women have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces. 97% of women aged 18-24 have been sexually harassed.
- pervasive harassment not being taken seriously. 96% or respondents to a YouGov survey said they didn't report sexual harassment, 45% of those because the didn't think it would change anything. Sarah Everard - you didn't use her name, out of what? Spite? - was allegedly killed by someone who 72 hours before had allegedly flashed 2 victims, and could have been neutralized had those incidents not been followed up by the police, as alleged, because they "didn't have time".
This misinterpretation attempts to disenfranchise women of their reason for protest. You punish people who reject this inferior status you've imposed on women with this misinterpretation, by comparing them to people who are 'brain dead', and accusing them of 'jumping on the bandwagon', which it's fair to describe as belittling.
I'm interested to hear by what definition of mysogyny you're arguing that it can't be said that it's level, on these pages, has not been ramped up several notches, or that it's not reflex white male privilege in action?
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
In my youth I remember seeing Les Dawson denigrating his mother-in-law with unbridled passion on a routine basis. He may have described her face as being like a sack of spanners but I’m sure he loved her, and the audience knew he didn’t really have a mean bone in his body. That kind of thing is harmless fun as far as I’m concerned. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where you can’t joke about women, or a world where women can’t joke about men.
Misogyny may soon be designated a hate crime if some people have their way. I’m uncomfortable with that, because a mother-in-law joke could be classed as a hate crime, since the term is a catch-all that covers anything prejudicial against women. IMHO the word would be better suited to proper misogyny: the spiteful, hateful, mean, violent stuff.
Also, my egalitarian hat says that if you’re going down that road, misandry should also be a hate crime, but you never hear any mention of that.
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
It’s all about context. We would still be free to tell mother-in-law jokes… unfortunately. But we live in a world where THEY won’t let us say what we want. Where THEY won’t let us say it like it is. Who the fuck are these mysterious THEYS? I hear about them all the time. THEY won’t ley me fly the union jack on St George’s day (apparently). THEY won’t let you play conkers in the playground. THEY are political correctness gone mad. The reality is, our discourse on ‘free speech’ has been muddied with an alleged right to say anything we want. We can and do draw clear lines to protect people from hate speech and hate actions. We’ve been doing it for many decades, thank God. Misogyny laws are long overdue.
A Pandora’s box was opened after 9/11 – the beginning of the post truth era. In the blink of an eye we were encouraged to debate torture. Suddenly it was a morally and ethically ambiguous area. Rendition and torture are now accepted and rarely discussed. We turn a blind eye to it because ‘people like us’ don’t get tortured. Snowflakes and libtards like me lost that battle. I don’t want to lose the battle against racism and misogyny.
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Misogyny may soon be designated a hate crime if some people have their way. I’m uncomfortable with that, because a mother-in-law joke could be classed as a hate crime
So, if someone commits a crime, and a mother-in-law joke he said while doing it proved to a criminal standard that the crime was motivated by the victim’s gender, or demonstrated hostility toward the victim based on their gender, you’re uncomfortable that it could constitute an ‘aggravating factor’ with regard to sentencing?
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Incredible how we have allowed one person to take control and poison the atmosphere
One person amongst dozens of contributors.
One
We fall for his traps every time
We spend far too much time reacting to his bile - which is why he does it
Making him the centre of attention every day
Don't get involved
It is pointless
Everything he does/ says is to get a reaction
If you allow him to get under your skin then he has beaten you.
Don't indulge him
We are here to enjoy ourselves and hopefully entertain
Don't get sidetracked trying to win a war you can't win
Remember what attracted you here in the first place
Stick to thatPosted 4 weeks ago # -
I'm not sure it's possible, in a legal context, to define misogyny, misandry, or hatred/contempt/prejudice against LGBT or religion or disabled or ...
How does this overlap with freedom of speech? These things are difficult to record, impossible to measure, impossible to judge, etc
In reality, there always has been & always will be some humour about differences. For example, if I'm in the pub with a mate, and our 2 partners go together to the toilet, do I get a criminal record for commenting on that?
At the other end of the scale, the several incidents at Clapham are clearly culpable
There has to be an element of common sense about this, but Titus' attempts at humour on these subjects here are clearly unacceptable
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
@Benvelo, you're asking the wrong question. If someone commits a crime, all evidence should, of course, be taken into account in a court of law. But blindly classifying misogyny itself as a hate crime is plainly wrong, because the word misogyny is too broad. You can be prejudiced without being hateful or criminal. Taken literally, you could be dragged to court for repeating a Les Dawson joke. As Sinnick suggests, it would be virtually impossible to define misogyny in a legal context.
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
But blindly classifying misogyny itself as a hate crime is plainly wrong
That's not what they're doing. They're classifying misogyny as a hate crime in the legal context I set out above, as an aggravating factor to a crime and not in and of itself (same as with legislation for other hate crimes, a sensible precedent based on existing and basic legal principles), and not blindly at all.
What you suggest would be wrong. But that's not what's being proposed and not what’s going to happen.
Posted 4 weeks ago # -
Just to be clear, Ben, the term hate crime is only used when there is an action which is already a crime in itself and it is given the label hate as an exacerbating factor, affecting the sentence? E.g. if I look at someone in a funny way and maybe mouth the n word, it's not actually a crime but if I punch him - crime - and use the n word, then it's a hate crime?
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
Yeah, think so, except that regardless of hate-crime legislation, looking at someone in a funny way and mouthing the n word could conceivably be a crime if it qualified as a public order offence under one of the the public order acts as it caused, and was intended to cause - to criminal standard (innocent until proven guilty), a person harassment, alarm or distress by the use of threatening, abusive or insulting language; just as much as any other threatening, abusive or insulting word in the qualifying circumstances might...so I suppose now that would be both a crime, with an aggravating sentencing factor as a hate-crime.
Yep, you could already be taken to court for repeating a Les Dawson joke.
Posted 3 weeks ago # -
This muddle is not helped by The Guardian or TV news who report (today) that “Police will be required to record crimes motivated by hostility to women”, when in fact they will be required to record information where the victim perceives it has been motivated by a hostility based on their sex. And quite right, too. To do otherwise would be sexist.
The Guardian further note this as a potentially significant step towards making misogyny a hate crime. No it isn’t. The recording of such information may assist in designating misogyny as a contributory factor. Not that misogyny itself is or will be a crime.
These are important distinctions. I could never have a comment like this published in The Guardian because they are really blinkered when it comes to their own sexist attitudes.
Here is how the Crown Prosecution Service define a hate crime:
To this will be added the word sex.
Posted 3 weeks ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.