Just days after publishing these articles, "Two friends jailed for nine years after raping drunk woman, 18, in alleyway just minutes after meeting her for the first time on nightclub dancefloor", "Three guilty of drunken party rape", and "Britain has more rapists in jail than any other EU country thanks to tougher sentencing", all clearly and unarguably anti rape/rapists (despite some of the comments), they decide to publish an article seemingly excusing a form of rape.
Now I know many will read the article, "Fifty shades of booze! Nine clever cocktails (and cheeky ways to drink your date into bed)... inspired by the erotic movie", and argue that it is a harmless piece of journalistic crap trying to cash in on the 'fifty shades' hype through advertisement revenue generated by linking a poorly written article on cocktails to a movie based on a poorly written book about cocks. To many it would be nothing more than the usual click bait that accounts for 90% of the internet alongside porn and cat pictures.
However, to defend the article on the basis that it is about cocktail recipes is to ignore the importance of what lay between the brackets in the headline.
A test of how important something is to changing the nature of an image or sentence is to simply remove it and see what remains.
The sentence without the bracketed words reads: "Fifty shades of booze! Nine clever cocktails inspired by the erotic movie" which, whilst still eluding to the throwaway nonsense that the article will contain, tells the prospective reader that it will be a fun little article which may contain 'essential' recipes for anyone interested in drinking cocktails based upon the most talked about movie of the year so far.
Reading the removed section of the headline alone paints a very different picture. It is not beyond the realms of possibility, in fact it probably does exist, for the self contained element of the headline to be a post/headline/thread on one of the many websites dedicated to the female hating section of the internet populated by the MRA's.
If a headline, or at least a single but very important element of the headlines message, is the sort of disgusting crap you would be able to read on the sites run by so-called 'alphas' then you know it is rape apologist in its nature. Whilst I am not arguing that the woman who wrote the article is an MRA, the message within the headline is worryingly reminiscent of it. The Daily Mail, by virtue of promoting language like it on their website, alongside their usual repertoire of casual sexism, have just gone and legitimized it to their less critical readers.
The fact that the essential message of the article remains intact when you remove one third of the headline speaks greatly of the nefariousness of the removed sentence, "cheeky ways to drink your date into bed" is meant as a joke, an unfunny joke, and one in very poor taste. It is a product of the 'rape culture' that breeds morons like Dapper Laughs and his ilk. A culture that views the domination and control of another person's body without consent as not a big deal, as funny or "cheeky", and as normal.
The fact that the essential message of the article remains intact when you remove one third of the headline speaks greatly of the nefariousness of the removed sentence, "cheeky ways to drink your date into bed" is meant as a joke, an unfunny joke, and one in very poor taste. It is a product of the 'rape culture' that breeds morons like Dapper Laughs and his ilk. A culture that views the domination and control of another person's body without consent as not a big deal, as funny or "cheeky", and as normal.
Evidently, it is also culture that the Daily Mail both believes is abhorrent and excusable at the exact same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment