![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emmelinemayThis article is bothering me for some reason.
A teenage girl has been convicted of murdering a 16-year-old boy who she had lured into a "honey trap".
From the the first sentence - "Shakilus Townsend would still be alive today if it had not been for a teenage temptress who toyed with his emotions and then betrayed him." through to the last - "Joseph now faces a life sentence and will have plenty of time to mull over the part she played in the death of an innocent boy." the article bothers me.
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that is getting to me. There's something about the way the girl is presented in the piece, the language used, the way the victim is referred to by his first name throughout, and yet she is referred to by her surname.
What do you think?
Edit - One thing has just hit me. Hidden away at the bottom of the article is the comment "McLean and five other youths were also convicted of murder on Wednesday."
So ALL of the kids were convicted, but the girl involved is the one that gets the article. Because she's a girl. Are girls involved in murder more evil than boys involved in murder? Or is this girl's crime, in the writer's eyes, the 'betrayal' of a boy who (after seeing her for 6 weeks) wanted to make her his 'future wife'? Is that her crime? Not being a 'good future wife'?
The boys that actually BEAT THIS BOY TO DEATH get about 2 sentences in the whole article. They BEAT HIM TO DEATH and yet the true villain of the piece is this foolish girl?
Edit the second: I am not saying what she did was ok, or 'less evil' than the beating up. My issue is SPECIFICALLY with the language used to report this crime, which makes her 'womanly wiles' out to be a crime as horrific as sticking the knife in herself. I am unsurprised that the female commenters get it, and the male ones (with a few notable exceptions) don't.
A teenage girl has been convicted of murdering a 16-year-old boy who she had lured into a "honey trap".
From the the first sentence - "Shakilus Townsend would still be alive today if it had not been for a teenage temptress who toyed with his emotions and then betrayed him." through to the last - "Joseph now faces a life sentence and will have plenty of time to mull over the part she played in the death of an innocent boy." the article bothers me.
I can't put my finger on exactly what it is that is getting to me. There's something about the way the girl is presented in the piece, the language used, the way the victim is referred to by his first name throughout, and yet she is referred to by her surname.
What do you think?
Edit - One thing has just hit me. Hidden away at the bottom of the article is the comment "McLean and five other youths were also convicted of murder on Wednesday."
So ALL of the kids were convicted, but the girl involved is the one that gets the article. Because she's a girl. Are girls involved in murder more evil than boys involved in murder? Or is this girl's crime, in the writer's eyes, the 'betrayal' of a boy who (after seeing her for 6 weeks) wanted to make her his 'future wife'? Is that her crime? Not being a 'good future wife'?
The boys that actually BEAT THIS BOY TO DEATH get about 2 sentences in the whole article. They BEAT HIM TO DEATH and yet the true villain of the piece is this foolish girl?
Edit the second: I am not saying what she did was ok, or 'less evil' than the beating up. My issue is SPECIFICALLY with the language used to report this crime, which makes her 'womanly wiles' out to be a crime as horrific as sticking the knife in herself. I am unsurprised that the female commenters get it, and the male ones (with a few notable exceptions) don't.
