hmmm

[emmelinemay]

This 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.

Comments

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

This is not 'equal' reporting.

Were this the one and only article about this incident you might have a point, but how about this one or this one where she isn't even named? OMG sexism, they named the boys but not the girl!!1!

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

see this comment:

http://emmelinemay.livejournal.com/1119668.html?thread=12112820#t12112820

for an answer to that one

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

And, actually, your reply doesn't invalidate anything I've said.

I was talking about THAT ARTICLE. THAT SPECIFIC ARTICLE bothered me. And it bothered me because of the use of language. I am very glad to hear that other articles didn't stoop to the same level as this one.

Seeing as you seem to think those other articles invalidate my point in some way, I would be interested to know what you think my point was in the first place?

Just in case you weren't sure:

This article is bothering me for some reason.

That was it. That was my point, the whole of it. THIS ARTICLE is bothering me. Not THIS CASE. Not ALL OF YOU BOYS.

I wasn't the one who started talking about feminism. I just wanted to discuss why that article bothered me. Some people replied. I agreed, and I was done.

cue a whole bunch of men leaping in to go NO YOU ARE WRONG, even though you don't actually seem to know what it is I'm saying.

but of course...

[brute-force.livejournal.com]

.. it's one of those touchy subject. I understand that the language bother you. These things get a life of their own.

[gaius-octavian.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, that article was focussing on one particular aspect of the case. It is one of a set of articles that cover the entire case. It's not that "she gets the article" because there is no "the article". It's also not true that she is the only one of the perpetrators referred to by her surname, and it's not true that she is being villified for not being good marriage material!

I wasn't the one who started talking about feminism.

Ermm, this post is tagged "feminism". I suppose it appears to some readers (incl. me) that you feel she is being treated unfairly due to her gender.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

i tagged it like that after the comments went in that direction.

I have no idea what you are talking about re. 'she gets the article' and there being no article.

You are not the person that started talking about feminism, and neither am I.

I am only talking about that one ITEM on the BBC news website, by that particular journalist. Other people who have commented have very succinctly summed up why it bothers me. As far as I am concerned, that is all there is. I don't know how many more times I can say this before people understand that it's not about WHAT SHE DID but about how THAT ONE ITEM OF NEWS represented it.

[cookwitch.livejournal.com]

She gets the article indeed.

Excuse me, but I just have a vision of the girl in question going "I GOT THE ARTICLE! I GOT IT! YEAH MAN! I'M FAMOUS NOW INNIT AND YO BOYS ARE JUS' BORING OLD KILLERS. Win, right blood?"

*rolls eyes*

Does that come under the same meaning as baby got back?

[aliasrob.livejournal.com]

I think Emmie is handing out biscuits for missing points.

[emmelinemay.livejournal.com]

no, only cookies, i am all out of biscuits.

I might have a hob nob? They're only good with a cup of tea though.

[cookwitch.livejournal.com]

Excellent! I adore biscuits. And I happen to respect Emmie a very great deal. She has a sound head and a good heart, and frankly when I see people try and belittle her and her views, it makes me very angry indeed. Especially when such a sanctimonious tones are used.

Biscuits? Some of these replies could have had a whole biscuit factory to themselves.