Tuesday, 11 September 2007

The Daily Mail + Jim Davidson= Angry Me

So I watched the first ten minutes of Hell's Kitchen because of the hoo-ha. God: what a despicable person Jim Davidson is. 'I should go back to my own kind' he said, sounding like a caveman. What exactly is his own kind? The type of language he uses is disgusting and it's nothing to do with his age. He's not that old, and being middle-aged isn't an excuse for being an ignorant, cruel piece of shit.
What really bugs me is when someone is sexist/ homphobic/ racist and then says 'well I'm not PC'. It's nothing to do with PC, you arrogant prick. It's about treating your fellow human beings with the same respect they show you. It's none of your fucking business who Brian Dowling sleeps with. Why would you CARE??? WHY??? ARGH I'M SO ANGRY!!!
Stupidly, I'm still reading the Daily Mail and two things annoyed me in it today (just two? I know) Firstly Amanda Platell wrote an article saying 'why I, a feminist, abhor how this abortion law has been so abused'. Firstly, she's not a feminist. I read her column and she's always saying very UN-feminist things. Secondly, whilst I agree that people shouldn't have very late abortions, what if women don't find out until very late? What if it's a choice between throwing themselves off a cliff or having it? Because that's what it would come down to, to someone who felt passionately enough about being in control of their own destiny. No woman, no baby. End of story.
Cutting the limit is just a step into the hands of those evangelical christians who shoot surgeons outside abortion clinics in the deep south. Just one step in that direction is a wrong one. I'd rather they did abortions on teenage girls against their WILL at dinner at school that gave those mad fuckers one INCH. This is my rational argument, deal with it.
The second thing that annoyed me was also an attack on women, this time a lovely double page spread with this headline: 'Julia was devastated when a rapist stole her virginity. Now, 10 years on, she admits if she hadn't been drunk, it might never happened.'
I don't think you need me to tell you what is wrong with that headline (apart from the fact it's too long). but in case you do, IT IS NOT A WOMAN'S FAULT WHEN SHE GETS RAPED. EVER. It doesn't matter if she's lying pissed in the gutter with her knickers round her ankles. Why do they always seek to blame the woman? Why is the man never held accountable? Why don't they say, 'if the bloke hadn't been a violent predator it would never have happened'? The way in which blame is subtly and not so subtly shifted onto women speaks volumes about the appalling conviction rate for rape in this country. The whole message of the article is anti-drinking propaganda (only for women of course, men can drink as much as they want and stick their dicks where they like) and for women to 'be on their guard' and basically not have fun, or they deserve it when they get attacked.
Well here's a thought, Daily Mail tossers, women should be allowed to drink what they want, wear what they want, go where they want, and not live in fear, and not be blamed when someone hurts them. So fuck you.


* (asterisk) said...

I read in some red-top the other night that a judge has ordered a 12-y-o girl to appear in court so he can see if she looks older than she is. She was raped; the rapist admits the offence but says he thought she was 15. Um, relevance? The dude dunnit and says so. It doesn't matter if she's 8 or 80. What the fuck is going on here?!

lightupvirginmary said...

The judges are all barking! Do you remember that one recently who didn't know what the internet was? And he was judging a computer fraud case? Give me strength!