Monday, 11 April 2016

Echo talks crap.

First, compare these 2 articles in the Liverpool Echo and //

There is a lot of hypocrisy between the two, even worse is on twitter the echo uses the lead picture of the second while in the article complaining about click bate. Criticising the article produces the normal half thought out 6th form feminism.
No one has asked the woman in this picture how she feels about it, there is an assumption that she is upset, there is also no questioning of her motives for wearing such a risqué/risky dress. The uniform assumption is she likes it and that is enough, but of course, human being come in psychologically in all shapes and forms, for anyone to make assumptions about this woman's motivation based on here sex is of course sexist. To assume that she will feel the same as you because she is the same sex as you is also sexist, this is however that stock in trade of the 6th form feminist. It substitutes, what they will inevitably call the patricidal view, with their own monolithic view, thereby substituting one hegemony with another, This rather sad half baked idea which just happens to make them typical, and allow them to use we.
People get thrills of all sorts in all sorts of ways, exhibitionism is one way , it might not be everyone’s cup of tea but is this woman happens to be an exhibitionism then she probably enjoyed the entire experience. To assume she didn't because women don't enjoy that kind of things is usually what we here about Queen Victoria and lesbianism.
I have seen pictures of people on the tube in full gimp gear, would people so easily dismiss the sexual motive behind that with, perhaps they like the look? Freud & Jung and the subconscious seem to be nothing in the world of the Echo, we are all little automata all acting consciously, knowing all our inputs, all out triggers and all out motives.
Deep down the subconscious motives for why we do anything are rather strange and complex, vast books have been written on them, probe the psyche and you get all sorts of weird motivations to assume, as the author of this article does in her defence of it, that this doesn't apply to women is both foolish, ignorant and sexists.
The Echo happily supports Homotopia, LGBT campaigns but its authors are as blind to the variety of sexualities as those of a retired interwar colonel in Surrey. Their support is for LGBT rights, is not born out of some educated point of view, but out of simply following the fashion. The only difference is they are making different bigoted assumptions’ about sexuality and set it within limits that they are happy with.
The other question is responsibility, the claim is that in one the girl deliberately flashed in the other it was accidental, but people are responsible for, not only the inevitable consequences of their actions but also the likely consequence. You do not get out of responsibility by saying that is not what I intended. The test in law regarding public indecency is, did the person have a "reasonable expectation of privacy", in this case, you have to ask did the person have a reasonable expectation her dress would not fly up, and the answer is no, not simply because it is a dress but because of the nature and design of the dress.
This is the pic that the Echo was using to illustrate the article on its website, it seems to have changed now. It is still the click bait it still uses on twitter. Even with the skirt not blown up, the picture would look the same. It not that I have looked at some other papers coverage but that I saw the skirt and its owner on Dale Street on Thursday, early afternoon. My first though was that they'd been in the papers over the weekend.

No comments:

Post a Comment