Was incensed by this 'lighthearted article' in the Daily Hate today by no-one's favourite horse-faced harridan Amanda Platell (I think the usual policy of not attacking people's personal appearance can be waived when discussing someone who makes a living from doing exactly that in the most disgusting way possible).
Amanda has written an article standing up for poor beleaguered men, and adverts taking the mick out of them (ironically whilst posting images of decades worth of sexually-insulting adverts aimed at women). And it's not like sexist adverts against women have stopped, as anyone who saw the recent(ish) BT advert with that plod from My Family on and his girlfriend going 'I lost the folder'- as if even merely glancing at a computer if you're a woman causes the entire hard-drive to spontaneously combust. Very subtle.
And what about that advert where that guy is watching the football and ordering is girlfriend to get his dinner? I don't know what that's for, but it offended me.
Platell goes on; 'As a society, we have become so institutionally sexist against men that it is now accepted practice to treat them as secondclass citizens. ' Oh well, not to worry, in the developing world women are still being stoned to death for not being virgins on their wedding night, so it's all swings and roundabouts, hey? And presumably 'in our society' the pay gap miraculously closed overnight and all the battered women's refuges were closed, and half naked men are appearing on Page 3 of The Sun now, yeah? How's that for a bit of role reversal? Gotta love equality!
She continues; 'On a more serious note, think of the raft of legislation that has been put in place to benefit women, and indeed positively discriminate in favour of them, often at the expense of male interests.' Like what? She doesn't offer a single example! Is she, a working woman, referring to maternity rights? (which incidentally do not apply to childless women- I can't personally think of any benefits I have over my male colleagues- and statistics have shown time and time again that men get paid more). If she is referring to maternity leave, then the implication is clear: get back in the kitchen and raise those babies, and keep your mouth shut, just like in the 'good old days'.
Does it not occur to this thick, humourless excuse for a woman that women have been ridiculed and abused for THOUSANDS of years? So now my boyfriend has to watch an advert where men are made fun of every once in a while. I think he can handle it. I don't think he needs you rushing to his defence, you traitor to your own sex, and a traitor to causes actually worth fighting for.
Even if men were routinely raped, beaten, mocked and paid less than women for the next ten thousand years it still wouldn't scratch the surface of levelling the playing-field. Doesn't she get that? And i'm not saying that I want that to happen, I'm saying that a couple of stupid adverts isn't exactly a big price to pay for a zillion years of supremacy.
I'm not even going to go into the bigoted drivel she spouts after that about any given minority, but her claim to speak for 'most people' is just plain offensive.
(Not) funnily enough, there was also a small story about a woman being sexually assaulted by a migrant, in an area where another woman was also raped. I can't find the link, but a police spokesman said (and I quote)... 'We constantly advise women not to walk alone in that area.' Can you see how insidious that language is? Oh, I see. So it's the victim's fault for being in that area! Silly woman, what was she thinking? Here was I thinking it was a free country, here was I thinking that the police might actually do something to protect women in a dodgy area, not wag their finger and go 'well, we did warn you...'
Equality... you're right, Amanda, we're far from it. And you disgust me.
Showing posts with label amanda platell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label amanda platell. Show all posts
Thursday, 21 May 2009
Friday, 30 January 2009
Rant: Daily Mail Gay Adoption Row
I've been trying to find the appropriate links for this story, but christ, the Daily Mail's website is virtually impossible to navigate. God knows how old people cope. How about a 'find related stories' option? Today's version was written by Jonathan Brocklebank- need I say more?
But this first article is the one that is the most gobsmackingly offensive.
The basic background is this; two children of a heroin addicted mother are to be adopted by a gay couple as social services have deemed the grandparents too old/ill to look after them. We don't know much more, Littlejohn claims this is because 'it’s been kept secret to protect the identities of the social workers involved and conceal the extent of their wickedness.' Er, no dipshit, it's to protect innocent children! Who knows what the background is? Maybe the heroin addicted mother is staying with the grand-parents? If the children have been taken into care it's obviously a serious reason. We hear enough about social workers NOT taking children into care, now they are criticised FOR taking them into care. Which way do you want it? Also, the grandparents parenting skills might need to be examined, right? I don't want to cast aspersions, but as that's exactly what they are doing, I think I will.
The crux of this story is pure, blatant homophobia. Check this out from the first article:
'Peter Kearney said: 'This is a devastating decision which will have a serious impact on the welfare of the children involved.
'There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved.
'With this in mind, the social work department has deliberately ignored evidence which undermines their decision and opted for politically correct posturing rather than providing stability and protection.
'It is impossible to see how this decision is in the best interests of the children.'
Read that again. 'There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing same sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved'!!! That is quite an audacious statement, no? WHERE is the evidence for that?!?!! I'd like to see it. Oh, but I can't because it's offensive BULLSHIT. Presuming a percentage of gay couples HAVE to adopt as they cannot have children biologically (although there are obvious other routes) it seems to me they must go through more stringent check to ENSURE they are suitable parents (just as straight couples do to adopt).
'The grandfather in this case says: ‘The mother is the cornerstone of any family and the most important person for a young child.’ The whole 'kids need mothers' outcry seems more than a little ironic; after all, they HAD one, didn't they, and she fell short! In fact, if I'm as reactionary and dumbass as the Mail, I'd think this story tells us if anything that mothers aren't fit to raise their own children.
This whole children need a mother figure and a father figure crap is just nonsensical to a vast number of people bought up by a loving single mother, or warring parents. It's just NOT TRUE. Sure in an ideal world, their mum could look after them. But she can't. The rest is just homophobia.
To read Littlejohn defending a heroin addict is just hilarious considering his usual stance on things. But hey, even junkies are preferable to sodomites, RIGHT?
And how about this thinly-veiled threat; 'As for anonymity, does anyone really think that two gay men, living together in an Edinburgh suburb, who suddenly start playing Happy Families with a five-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl, are going to go unnoticed?' In other words, lets hire an angry mob. Does he not understand the anonymity was for the children's sake? Do the grandparents not even understand that?
And for an extra bit of poison, see that horse-faced cunt Platell's musings on it.
I feel sorry for the couple involved who can't speak out and defend themselves, as they are basically written off as not fit to be parents on the basis of who they fell in love with. They obviously want to be parents and it must be just awful to have your relationship described as unequal to straight people's, when there are a zillion straight couples out there with godawful realtionships, making all sorts of horrific parenting choices. Because that's the part the Mail writers don't get: all people are different. You can lump them together and quote imaginary statistics, but it doesn't make you right. Every relationship has it's own dynamics, and that couple have a right to adopt, just like lesbians, infertile women, or anybody else. It's not their fault the social workers said no to the grandparents. And it's not their fault the mother couldn't cope. And it's not their fault their suitability as parents is being questioned due to their sexuality. It's just wrong and unjust, and an insult to all gay people, and all sane people, just because the Daily Mail are bigotted fuckwits.
I hope those men bring those children up to be much-loved, open-minded, happy little people. Because after all this, they deserve it.
But this first article is the one that is the most gobsmackingly offensive.
The basic background is this; two children of a heroin addicted mother are to be adopted by a gay couple as social services have deemed the grandparents too old/ill to look after them. We don't know much more, Littlejohn claims this is because 'it’s been kept secret to protect the identities of the social workers involved and conceal the extent of their wickedness.' Er, no dipshit, it's to protect innocent children! Who knows what the background is? Maybe the heroin addicted mother is staying with the grand-parents? If the children have been taken into care it's obviously a serious reason. We hear enough about social workers NOT taking children into care, now they are criticised FOR taking them into care. Which way do you want it? Also, the grandparents parenting skills might need to be examined, right? I don't want to cast aspersions, but as that's exactly what they are doing, I think I will.
The crux of this story is pure, blatant homophobia. Check this out from the first article:
'Peter Kearney said: 'This is a devastating decision which will have a serious impact on the welfare of the children involved.
'There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved.
'With this in mind, the social work department has deliberately ignored evidence which undermines their decision and opted for politically correct posturing rather than providing stability and protection.
'It is impossible to see how this decision is in the best interests of the children.'
Read that again. 'There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing same sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved'!!! That is quite an audacious statement, no? WHERE is the evidence for that?!?!! I'd like to see it. Oh, but I can't because it's offensive BULLSHIT. Presuming a percentage of gay couples HAVE to adopt as they cannot have children biologically (although there are obvious other routes) it seems to me they must go through more stringent check to ENSURE they are suitable parents (just as straight couples do to adopt).
'The grandfather in this case says: ‘The mother is the cornerstone of any family and the most important person for a young child.’ The whole 'kids need mothers' outcry seems more than a little ironic; after all, they HAD one, didn't they, and she fell short! In fact, if I'm as reactionary and dumbass as the Mail, I'd think this story tells us if anything that mothers aren't fit to raise their own children.
This whole children need a mother figure and a father figure crap is just nonsensical to a vast number of people bought up by a loving single mother, or warring parents. It's just NOT TRUE. Sure in an ideal world, their mum could look after them. But she can't. The rest is just homophobia.
To read Littlejohn defending a heroin addict is just hilarious considering his usual stance on things. But hey, even junkies are preferable to sodomites, RIGHT?
And how about this thinly-veiled threat; 'As for anonymity, does anyone really think that two gay men, living together in an Edinburgh suburb, who suddenly start playing Happy Families with a five-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl, are going to go unnoticed?' In other words, lets hire an angry mob. Does he not understand the anonymity was for the children's sake? Do the grandparents not even understand that?
And for an extra bit of poison, see that horse-faced cunt Platell's musings on it.
I feel sorry for the couple involved who can't speak out and defend themselves, as they are basically written off as not fit to be parents on the basis of who they fell in love with. They obviously want to be parents and it must be just awful to have your relationship described as unequal to straight people's, when there are a zillion straight couples out there with godawful realtionships, making all sorts of horrific parenting choices. Because that's the part the Mail writers don't get: all people are different. You can lump them together and quote imaginary statistics, but it doesn't make you right. Every relationship has it's own dynamics, and that couple have a right to adopt, just like lesbians, infertile women, or anybody else. It's not their fault the social workers said no to the grandparents. And it's not their fault the mother couldn't cope. And it's not their fault their suitability as parents is being questioned due to their sexuality. It's just wrong and unjust, and an insult to all gay people, and all sane people, just because the Daily Mail are bigotted fuckwits.
I hope those men bring those children up to be much-loved, open-minded, happy little people. Because after all this, they deserve it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)