I sent this to Becky Gardiner, who was my editor with you when I provided you with token poverty porn.
”Could you rectify your style guide and be clear that when the Guardian reports on ‘single parents’ that when they use numbers to imply there are too m any, that is an approach that comes with a body count.
Could you also ask them to cease using insulting pictures in subheadings and contributing to editorial styles which exacerbate the demonisation of the women paying teh price for all the handwringing. Coroners are quite concerned at the numbers of dead women appearing and local authorities are threatening to remove children with bedroom tax notices.
While I dont expect the Guardian to stop selling the rolling back of equality for working class women and I certainly dont expect your feminism pages to even acknowledge what it is being done, as the consequences are being felt with rape, violence and the death of women could you be a bit more responsible. Ta”
I wanted to clarify a few things for you. The difference between a single parent and a married one is a husband. Women leaving relationships is not a social problem, women staying in relationships that are not safe is a social problem. One which is reflected in coroners courts. Deliberately created poverty is not something that can be addressed by treating those women as exhibits whose choices are to be picked over. Women facing economic inequality as a result of motherhood is a problem which also afflicts you, I recall Gaby Hinsliff downsizing once she became a mother and her role as editor of the Observer was pushed out of the question. It is not news that women are more likely to be recipients of state support when they have children, the workplace is fairly hostile to mothers and I know your lot aren’t very bright but a calculator should show you the reason poverty has a female face in this country and why and how austerity targeted women.
I know you don’t view working class women as women, and I know you view working class mothers as a sub species if they leave their partners, but they are not. Equality was just rolled back, I know this is not the concern of feminism when there are pink kinder eggs, crochet politics and the latest ego trip of Charlotte Raven to worry about. I know women who reproduce are betraying the cause of your vacuous feminist writers, and I don’t expect the current war on women to make it to your feminism section on that basis, but I have a few requests.
First of all when you discuss ‘Lone Parents’ like a sub species, could you stop. When you choose your photographs to illustrate the poverty porn your readers like to wank over as your paper sells Labour austerity priorities and the disenfranchisement that led to that poverty, could you stop choosing insulting photographs designed to reinforce Daily Mail prejudice. Could you perhaps contextualise the occasional poverty porn or handwringing about domestic violence you do include, with the fact it is has been made economically impossible for mothers to leave relationships which are harmful to them and their children, work won’t make a difference, and could you perhaps not report the numbers of households where there is one parent like there are too many of them and somehow preventing women from leaving would reduce these numbers, that is a method which only increases deaths and abuse not decrease poverty. Equality till you breed, and only then if you are middle class is not really equality at all.
Women have had the right to choose who they fuck for a long time, even that sub species the working class. Whether women fuck their husbands is not a matter of political debate because they are of a different class to you. When they are forced by economics to stay it increases deaths and rape and the numbers of women living in fear.
When Jess McCartney Morley needs an adjective to describe why a 350quid coat is fashionable, could you perhaps explain to her that it is not austerity fashion. In fact could you please revise your insulting and exploitative approach to whitewashing the rolling back of equality for women full stop. The women you exploit, and the women who pay the price for wilful ignorance are not a sub species, they are your betters.
I appreciate for you, the systematic removal of legal representation, democratic representation and systematic exploitation of gender inequality as the wheel to deliver austerity is not important because …Labour. I appreciate you believe you have the right to protect your self image by publishing poverty porn and masturbating over rapes and deaths, while selling the reason those rapes and deaths are on the increase, but you don’t. It’s offensive. More offensive than a stock cube advert and a Heidi Klum halloween costumes.
While you may not view them as women, especially not women important enough to stir the concern of your self appointed feminist vanguard, I can assure they are not ‘those’ women just because it’s an article about benefits, and you can illustrate it with a picture of a girl in a hoody with a pram or someone standing next to an empty kitchen cupboard. Most of them contribute more than your vacuous little commentariat fishpond could ever imagine. Their sexual autonomy is as important as the whinging of Oxbridge women in your feminism pages, their right to democratic representation was as important, and their right to be able to choose lives free of abuse for them and their children was more important than Charlotte Raven’s latest ego trip.
Could you stop editing your poverty porn as if it is a Tory issue when you are fully aware, because you sold Blue Labour, that exploitation of gender inequality is also Labour’s plan. Could you stop Polly Toynbee and her exploitation of the poverty of women, while she is also praising Rachel Reeves for planning to be tougher on women than the ridiculous Ian Duncan Smoth(you are aware welfare is a women’s issue and why).
I would like you to remember that selling the systematic subordination of working class women while wanking over their misery is disgusting and I would like you to remember this is the age of the internet and you are only making yourself obsolete and demonstrating why your business model is a failure.
The debate about intersectionality is not about the hurt feelings of your columnists, it’s about the intersection of gender, race and class, which means you can ignore a war being waged on women while claiming yourselves as the voice representing them. I would remember that people are watching and can see what you are selling and how and your position as the home of UK feminism is being made ridiculous by the content of your pages as working class women are pushed back to the dark ages.