Throws like a girl, too

Same old same old same old same old. Woman says things that people disagree with; people call her a slut a whore a bitch a cunt.

Louise Mensch is currently making news because she’s been the target of misogyny. After she journeyed to every TV studio in London to voice her ill-advised support for Rupert Murdoch, some unpleasant individuals took to Twitter to brand her a slut, a whore, a bitch and other unedifying terms. In response, Mensch meticulously documented all those inveighing against her, and took to Twitter (where else?) to denounce them using the hashtag #feminism.

She’s a Tory. I’m not a Tory, just as I’m not a Republican. I somehow manage to get along however without calling Michelle Bachmann a slut or a whore or a bitch or a cunt.

Mensch is being accused of using the misogyny she’s encountered to claim some sort of victim status. Well I’m sorry, but I just don’t think that’s true. Whenever I have suffered misogyny as a result of an argument I have made, I’ve never thought, ‘oh good, here’s something I can use.’ I feel depressed, because yet again I’m not being listened to. Yet again I’m being judged simply for having an opinion – for not being the pure, submissive, obedient ideal I’m supposed to be. The idiots who call opinionated women whores and sluts aren’t giving those women ammunition to deflect valid criticism; they’re oppressing them using the same rotten tropes women are exposed to from the moment the doctor says ‘it’s a girl.’

Anyone who casts doubt on Mensch’s insistence that she is sharing her experience because she refuses to feel ashamed simply doesn’t understand that shame is integral to misogyny. We women are often cast as the raw materials of body hair, madness, and sexual urges, which we must then wax, tame and abstain into social acceptance. Whenever we stray away from the ideal society has constructed for us, we’re judged as lapsing back into an unrefined natural state, like Lady Macbeth, Moll Flanders or the madwoman in the attic. When I’ve been called shrill or a slut, I often don’t tell people because I’m afraid that even the mere association with those terms might encourage others to think that maybe I am those things. And that will make me dirty and repellent.

Plus stupid and a coward and a loser. I just went to Twitter to re-find the Mensch tweets, and before I could look I found a tweet from a Labour MP.

Tom Harris@TomHarrisMP

What a hero! Fearless protester chucks an egg at EdM and runs away. Like a girl. Throws like a girl too. #loser

I’m tempted to move to Glasgow so that I can ostentatiously not vote for Tom Harris MP for Glasgow South.

Now for some Mensch tweets.

find yourself calling louise mensch every name under the sun during select comm press conference,cold faced cold hearted bitch

Rupert Hitler bent on world  corp fascist domination is a fukn saint  Loise mensch is a typical soulless rich whore.

Louise Mensch really is an absolutely Rancid cunt isn’t she?

We asked some crusties if they’d have sex with Louise Mensch

Asking the members of Occupy London, “Would You Have Sex With Louise Mensch?”

Trenchant political analysis, innit.


  1. says

    On this point, Mensch is correct, too. It is not for a parliamentary committee to make a judicial finding of fact (‘not a fit and proper person’). That is a job for the courts or a tribunal/body vested with quasi-judicial powers (eg, Ofcom). Separation of powers, people: it remains important regardless of how much you hate Rupert Murdoch.

    Today I (a Tory) and a good pal (SNP) had to spend a disproportionately lengthy amount of time explaining this basic fact to a decent number of people.

    But then, we are both lawyers, and when someone is roundly hated by all and sundry, sometimes only lawyers believe in the presumption of innocence.

  2. Doug McClean says

    What exactly makes that a “judicial” finding of fact? It seems on its face to rather clearly be a “legislative” finding of fact, found as it was by legislators instead of jurists.

    Is “not a fit and proper person” a term of art in UK law? This is apparently an impossible question to google at the moment, due to a flood of links to reports on the Murdoch investigation.

    Apologies in advance for my ignorance of the relevant law here.

  3. dexitroboper says

    sometimes only lawyers believe in the presumption of innocence.

    The presumption of innocence only applies to the defendant in a criminal trial, when the state is required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It’s not an excuse for the wealthy and powerful and their defenders to hide behind.

  4. Dave says

    @4, yes, it is a term of art; it relates to the conditions under which companies are granted broadcast licences, and more generally to the status of directors of publicly-listed companies. It is also commonly used in legal judgments in other instances where people’s moral credibility is in question – such as child custody.

    Whatever you make think of Murdoch, R or J, [acck spitt], the committee chair was grandstanding, knowing full well that his pseudo-judicial language would hit the headlines, but likely have no other effect.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *