Not prostitutes. Not girls.* Not asking for it. Not deserving of it. Not dirty. Not addicts. Not weak. Not stupid. Not delicate. Not rough. Not disposable. Not unloved. Just women. Just human.
* On last night's Sky breaking news report, Ipswich MP Chris Mole and the Sky correspondent repeatedly referred to these murdered women as "girls". In these circumstances, this word is not appropriate, nor is it respectful.
7 comments:
Oh absolutely, Pippa. The titillation thing sickens me. The reporting is like that everywhere: The women are referred to as "girls", like they're centrefolds or something.
It's disgusting, but heartening to read what Julie Bindel, Joan Smith et al have to say at The Guardian.
Since woman doesn't = human, you'd think they wouldn't be so resistant to using it.
Ah but "girls" is so "sexy", isn't it?
Bastards.
So direct and right to the point! Even though these women are prostitutes, that is their job, THEY are women! Their occupation would be inconsequential if they weren't prostitutes - and it really worries me that the fact they are thought of under that label rather than the label of 'victim' or 'woman' affects they way the public think of these women.
I find it so disrespectful that they refer to these women as 'girls' and that at points they seem to have lost their surnames.
Witchy-woo - I think that's a very important point - it's like ladsmags' refusal to refer to women as women and use any word but because then they have to associate them with reality, real women, real mothers and sisters and daughters and feminists and activists and wives and girlfriends, three dimensional women.
I find it creepy the fathers (no moms?) are being interviewed for their opinion and apparently, had "no idea" their daughters were selling themselves. Right.
Well said, Pippa.
well said
Post a Comment