sorry - saw this, was incensed, there's no-one around but me and who else to vent to but the bunnies?

Eh. I refuse to get het up over linguistic faux-pas, it's a waste of energy and makes leftists look silly and gives the right an easy way to discredit us.

"the women became radicalized" is a pretty heinous construction, implying don't have any agency of their own.

altolinguistic, I completely agree. It's more than linguistic. Somehow these women are worse because they're mothers, ferchrissakes! What kind of unnatural woman would do this when she's got children! Please, won't someone think of the children! Whereas their male counterparts are described as sons, but never fathers, even though their children would be just as damaged by their acts. And of course, the 'radicalized men corrupting innocent, impressionable European women' angle is nauseating, too.

The inevitable comments about a woman's clothes and hair when she's in a story about, say, quantum physics irritate the crap out of me, too.

THERE IS NO SHOUTING IN THIS THREAD.

WHAT
THE
FUCK
ALTOLINGUISTIC?!?!

Jon, it's more than a simple linguistic faux pas; it's institutionalized faux pas.

However, I'm getting nervous now, because whenever any feminist oriented conversation comes up here, people freak out and go nuts.

(Aha. On preview, it's already begun.)

I HAD A LITTLE SHOUT, then calmed down and was reasonable... annoying, I know.

jonmc - hadn't thought of this as a right/left division, to be honest - though I suppose it is in a way. I wouldn't wish to imply that the right all believe that women have no agency and are valid principally because of their motherhood (or lack of it).

keswick, I feel like I've arrived! Nobody's ever issued me with a WTF before!!

on preview, let's keep this nice for taz...

Since her decision to take her child along is part of the issue of the article, I find it unsurprising. If a male suicide bomber took his kids along, I would be unsurprised if the headline called him a "father."

And yes, there is quite a bit of media attention paid to converts of both sexes being dragged/seduced/cornered/persuaded into terrorism or radical rejection of their "home" culture and their families. It may not be a "problem" per se, but it's certainly fair to mention in an article.

In a vacuum, these constructions might be offensive; out of context, these points are irrelevant. As part of a larger picture of journalistic sexism, it's a borderline case: its wording is unfortunate but supports the points of the article and the facts of the case as laid out by the writer reasonably well, as far as I can see.

Jon, it's more than a simple linguistic faux pas; it's institutionalized faux pas.

I agree that in a perfect world, it wouldn't happen, but we gotta pick our battles and this isn't worth it.

I wouldn't wish to imply that the right all believe that women have no agency and are valid principally because of their motherhood

I don't know whether they do or they don't, but it's more along the lines of 'who cares about the language of the article, these people are blowing shit up."

Oh! You don't have to keep it nice for me! I'm just making an observation about a particular oddity of metachat.

Hugh, there was no information that she was taking her child. The article said "It could not be ruled out that, in doing so, she would also kill her small child, who lived with her."

So, altolinguistic's comment is perfectly valid. Has anyone ever said about a male suicide bomber, "It could not be ruled out that, in doing so, he would also kill his small child, who lived with him"?

However, I'm getting nervous now, because whenever any feminist oriented conversation comes up here, people freak out and go nuts.

taz, c'mon, this is us you're talking to. Offering our honest opinions is hardly 'going nuts.' And my honest opinion, is that time spent fretting about linguistic gaffes would better be spent fighting for concrete gains, and reinforces the stereotype of liberals and leftists as neurotic fluffbrains, which the neo-cons have made political hay with.

I think maybe we're talking about a different thing than you are, Jon. I don't see any liberal/neo-con element in this, and, in fact, if I had to bet, I would say the reporter is more likely left-leaning than not.

This is just about the different (and bizarre) standards used in media to talk about women, as opposed to men in the same context.

I don't see any liberal/neo-con element in this, and, in fact, if I had to bet, I would say the reporter is more likely left-leaning than not.

But it's us liberals getting agitated over it. That's my point. I just have very little patience with worrying about words in an article, when the problem the article is talking about is far more important. It's fiddling while Rome burns, but that's just my opinion.

This is very nice topic alto.
I am thinking loud here mainly because I am meanwhile trying to sort out my own beliefs here.

Once in grad school here in the US, I took a class (women in science) which was taught by an extraordinary female professor, feminist, highly educated, fought her way to the top (she is also gay) and who believed that women are NOT like men (in science, in politics, in life in general) because of their upbringing (male dominated world--nurture) and because of the fact that they are naturally made to carry and raise children (nature).

Coming from a different background (southern european, discriminatory but in a different way than in anglosaxon countries) I did call her out on this. I did and still do believe that women (given different social conditioning even) would be exhibiting the same behavior as men. So, for me, a woman suicide bomber is an equally probable occurrence as a male one (yeah! I know, hard one to prove!)

However, given the fact that women are raised (more in the past than now) to be caring and compromising it is socially "disagreeable" to encounter such "radical" women. And more to that, given that (very very arguably) people become suicide bombers out of desperation, female bombers constitute by far a more dramatic demonstration of this fact.

In other words, it is not a priori anti-feminist to say "omg! a female suicide bomber" and it is not a priori pro-feminist to say "why not a female bomber?".

/my 2 cents.

Sorry, taz, I was reading:

Berlin police said the woman may have been planning to take along her child, who has since been taken into care.

Which of course was the writer's extrapolation from the police claim you quote. Which was the headline writer's justification for the use of the word, "Mother," in the headline.

So yeah, there's a stretch going on there, and I'm guilty of not reading carefully enough.

But the radicalized partners thing? That's a nit being picked by a pet peeve. It's an important issue that, while it might offend the strong- and independent-minded among us, applies to many who don't share that strength.

Maybe the writer is making the judgment that it is worse for a child to grow up motherless than fatherless. Perhaps the recent increase in women bombers being used by radical religious demagogues has something to do with it as well.

I think looking at it as a journalistic problem allows us to operate in a false realm of security in which it actually matters whether a newspaper writer's words can be extrapolated into insults, which are then proof of all sorts of conspiracy.

I see your point about the "Mother" thing, but I understand the editorial decision behind using it. I disagree about radicalized spouses, though. That's a real issue, and the terms in which it is spoken are passive not only because it's the BBC.

And I fear the "going nuts" bit is aimed in my general direction. Just let me know, and I'll drop my opinions like hot rocks.

Carmina, I agree with most of that... But I also agree with alto disagreeing that journalists should twist themselves into pretzels trying to exploit any possible aspect of the perpetrator being a woman, specifically, when it's not relevant.

Just as elizard mentioned, press reports about female politicians often talk about their wardrobe, makeup, hair, etc., and it's ridiculous, because it has nothing to do with their actions or purpose. It's only reported because they're female.

Phew.

Why not say "the women chose radicalism through intimate personal associations with known radicals, and through networking on message boards"

or something

rather than

"the women became radicalized" (by their partners and the Internet, and things that they couldn't be expected to control because they are helpless and need society to protect them, poor dears.)

Yeah, jonmc, you have a point that the real issue is the blowin' up of shit.

But the tone does rankle. And most people hear it all the time and think nothing of it at all. I think it's good to point it out in whatever small way when you run across it, like altolinguistic did.

Ah. Sorry, Hugh. It probably sounded that way, but that's not what I meant. dfowler/mcgraw left last time and has never been back, and it's weird to me.

One thing I like about metachat a lot is that we have a lot of women. So I assume most of the guys who hang out here are pretty comfortable with that... But then, whenever there's a discussion about women's issues, things just always seem to go all freaky, and that sort of surprises me.

We are comfortable with all of you, which is why we won't dance around about what we think since we think you all are not porcealin dolls and can handle it. We talk to other men this way, too.

Please, won't someone think of the children! Whereas their male counterparts are described as sons, but never fathers, even though their children would be just as damaged by their acts.

Because men are supposed to spread their seeds and women are supposed to hoarde their eggs. It is institutionalized.

Whoa, do you really think that's where mcgraw has been? I often think of him.

trying to exploit any possible aspect of the perpetrator being a woman, specifically, when it's not relevant

taz, why is it not relevant? The point I was trying to make is that my ole' prof would probably take it as relevant.

I also totally agree with elizard's comment. Wardrobe is not relevant in a female politician's (or physicist's) case but religion/politics *is* relevant to a female's life. (obvious disclaimer: I do not in any way condone suicide bombing).

Nobody uses the Team Vag thing on the front page anymore, though. (That was mcgraw, right?). I'm glad about that, and wish he'd a stuck around to see it.

I always learn a lot when women's issues stuff is posted.

I am sorry mcgraw left, if he left for this Team Vag thing. I am also sorry that people intentionally refrain from posting Team Vag threads.

I usually am at fault, because I usually get up in arms when folks consider or go about replacing perceived or existing double standards which favor men, with ones that favor women. Or when a point is made in such a way that disagreement on a narrow point is tantamount to general bigotry.

I'm trying to find out what I think just as much as I'm trying to find out what others think. I don't play devil's advocate; I just step in when I care and especially when I notice a lack of critique of an unexplained idea.

These threads sometimes get out of hand, because it's easy to read a line or two and think one has a bead on what someone else is thinking. I usually try to make it clear what I'm thinking and doing.

And don't worry, I won't drop my opinions. I was just being pouty.

And, finally on topic a little, where did this article mention her clothes?

Carmina, I agree with you that women are not the same as men, but I think that a reporter noting (not once, but twice) that a potential suicide bomber might have planned to take her child with her is just completely out of line, and inserted entirely for shock value to maximise the horror and disgust.

Why? Why do that? If she did actually reveal any concrete indication of doing that, it would be something worth reporting, just the same as if a male suicide bomber intended to blow up his child with him. But she didn't.

Listening to the BBC radio news this evening, they are talking about a 'father of three' being stabbed in Bristol (it's all about the stabbings here in the UK at the moment!), which opens this issue out a bit - it is indeed relevant if a person who dies has children. I do think, however, that this aspect of someone's life is more likely to be emphasised if the person happens to be female - take the example of a female mountaineer, name forgotten, who died on K2 and was lambasted (*after* her death) for being irresponsible enough to go and climb mountains and leave her small children.

Similarly, I'm aware of the phenomenon of people being radicalised by extremist preachers/friends/relatives, and this is important - and on reflection, I have heard it said of (for example) the young men who bombed London last summer. So a lack of agency is being attributed to them, as well... which is interesting. Are all suicide bombers weak, and do none of them have independent minds?

Are all suicide bombers weak, and do none of them have independent minds?

Well, being willing to blow yourself to kingdom come and take lots of innocents with you at the behest of a leader who claims to be a representative of God would imply a certain weakness, yes.

I usually get up in arms when folks consider or go about replacing perceived or existing double standards which favor men, with ones that favor women.

Hugh, I agree with you wholeheartedly on this - but I don't think anyone here is doing that. I hope not, anyway. I'm also trying to work out what I think, and I do occasionally find myself playing devil's advocate if that is what is required to clarify a point.

Not at all, altolinguistic; nobody here in this thread is. I was just addressing the larger point of how these threads "go nuts," and one of the more common triggers for my enthusiastic participation in such nutsiness.

And I wonder whether, since they gleaned her intent from writings on the internet, if there isn't more to the police's sussing out her intent, or if there isn't a section of German criminal law that makes the notion of bringing the kid along more prosecutable, or chargeable under a different level of offense.

These are things I don't know, but that could have influenced how the writer approached this article, just as reliance on a sexist trope might have. I don't know, nor will I claim to.

elizard, what are you wearing right now?

be detailed.

I bet she's wearing a big grin. :)




It's not that a person is a parent, and that gets mentioned.

When a "father of three" is killed, it's a tragedy; those "three" have lost their papa.I've never heard a male suicide bomber described that way. I have heard them referred to as a "son of" someone.

When a woman does something henious, to imply she MIGHT have taken her child with her is melodrama,the implication seems to be that fact makes her an even worse person.

and yeah.. it's seemed to me that a place like metachat, with so many women, is still careful of those tender ones who appear to be threatened (why else appear to attack?). I think it's a style thing.