Just to say

Bottom line is GN did NOT remove the thread and when I asked them to they said it would be a shame as so many people contributed to it. So THEY chose not to.

They are obviously less bothered about it than a handful of holier than thous on here who know full well that plenty of other politicians, minor celebs etc have been called far worse in recent years. It seems it’s fair game to joke about some people (Katie Price springs to mind) but not Saint Ange.😉

Yes, read it before I posted.

My opinion hasn't changed.

Except the more I think about it, the more ironic, lacking in self-awareness and very funny it seems. 😁

Have posters actually read the full article alluded to in the O/P?

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jul/14/reducing-labour-women-to-the-sum-of-their-outfits-is-suddenly-all-the-rage

GN does appear in a tiny bit, which isn't fair, given the range of helpful topics we do cover, but nothing was said in CB's article that didn't appear in GN.

Oreo

Casdon

I don’t like being tainted with the same brush as people who can’t recognise when a line has been crossed and who therefore get Gransnet mentioned in the press. It’s just a good job that no journalists picked up on the thread before the worst comments were deleted, or it wouldn’t just have been the Guardian reporting on that thread.
Lots of us love talking about clothes, but please can we just stick to the clothes only in future?

You do know that there were only a couple of posts that ‘crossed a line’ don’t you? So many posters are jumping in on this TAAT that they can’t possibly have read the whole thing, as various posters have pointed out.The huge majority of comments were about the trouser suit itself and later became a humorous lighthearted set of comments.
I for one refuse to have my comments on fashion policed by the ‘if you can’t say anything nice say nothing at all’ brigade on here.If any other politicians turn up in strange outfits then expect it to be commented on.

Yes Oreo, I do know. The comments that were deleted were personal insults to Angela Rayner way beyond anything I’ve seen on Gransnet before about anybody, and are specifically what I’ve been referring to, not mild comments about clothes not suiting people, bad hair, or similar. The comments are etched on my brain but I won’t repeat them to explain exactly what was said, obviously. Apologies if anybody assumed my comments were more general.

The harpie bitch here is using her real name 😂

Yes. Scum, pint sized loser …

Angela Rayner is not averse to making personal comments about other people.

Why are some posters bothered by any journalists about GN?
MN is quoted regularly for all sorts of reasons.
We’re all anonymous anyway unless your GN name is your real one.Posters should only be wary about giving away too much personal info as anyone can read comments on here.

Callistemon213

Anniebach

Agree , some remarks were brutal

But most weren't.

Most were commenting on the trousers themselves, not on Ms Rayner personally.

I just wonder why stating an opinion that you didn't like the trousers, thought they didn't look right is considered misogyny whereas a Guardian journalist (and some Gransnetters) believe that male politicians are fair game and can be mocked for their appearance, even as far as fat-shaming.

I don't understand.

Calling women harpies is misogyny too.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
So is calling members vicious grannies as one poster has just done.
It’s all just too weird.🤷🏼‍♀️

Casdon

I don’t like being tainted with the same brush as people who can’t recognise when a line has been crossed and who therefore get Gransnet mentioned in the press. It’s just a good job that no journalists picked up on the thread before the worst comments were deleted, or it wouldn’t just have been the Guardian reporting on that thread.
Lots of us love talking about clothes, but please can we just stick to the clothes only in future?

You do know that there were only a couple of posts that ‘crossed a line’ don’t you? So many posters are jumping in on this TAAT that they can’t possibly have read the whole thing, as various posters have pointed out.The huge majority of comments were about the trouser suit itself and later became a humorous lighthearted set of comments.
I for one refuse to have my comments on fashion policed by the ‘if you can’t say anything nice say nothing at all’ brigade on here.If any other politicians turn up in strange outfits then expect it to be commented on.

I'm afraid the original poster fell for the bait: ie; divide and rule ("that'll keep the laydeez nicely pre-occupied!")

Anniebach

Agree , some remarks were brutal

But most weren't.

Most were commenting on the trousers themselves, not on Ms Rayner personally.

I just wonder why stating an opinion that you didn't like the trousers, thought they didn't look right is considered misogyny whereas a Guardian journalist (and some Gransnetters) believe that male politicians are fair game and can be mocked for their appearance, even as far as fat-shaming.

I don't understand.

Calling women harpies is misogyny too.

Yes, indeed, Tuaim, but I think a close family member could say the "impolite" stuff without it necessarily being a faux pas. It might even be said jokingly. I think it's wrong to assume it would always be harmful.

Each one of us has a discourse informed by where we come from, where we live, what jobs we follow/followed, and with whom we associate. However, to get long in life with our fellow humans we can either be assertive or aggressive and this is reflected in our discourse. I would put forward the theory that most people wish to be heard, treated with dignity, and feel they belong to the context. Problems arise when the unspoken rules of communication are transgressed. i.e. if I say ' What do I look like in this dress?' A polite person, aware of their discourse would say: 'Well, I prefer you in the pink dress as it suits you better' whereas a person who is trangressing the unspoken rules may say: 'You look shocking in that dress. I wouldn't have even put it on'. Both speakers are exercising their freedom of speech but the first is doing it in a way accepted by the larger section of society. The second speaker is leaving you with a feeling of 'I wish I hadn't asked'. You probably won't be asking them again for advice. It is about the way you deliver your discourse be it politely or bluntly.

Jesus wept 😂

I agree with the journalist, the remarks about Angela Raynor and what she was wearing were unpleasant.

JaneJudge

Bumface

I was also appalled when the harpies hijacked another thread and turned it into series of weak trouser suit puns and random pictures of women in trouser suits. But then I'm just a "fun sponge."

so now I'm a harpie
wtf bumface

I apologise JaneJudge. I had no recollection of who had called me a fun sponge. I don't want this to degenerate into a slanging match.

I use the term harpies instead of bitches because bitches are female dogs and dogs are nice.

I would suggest that calling posters harpies contravenes guidelines.

It does.

Germanshepherdsmum

I see no problem with it, so long as the same rule applies to women and men.

Same.

"Scruffy/casual" being the main objection to the look of said trouser suit on AR.

I see no problem with it, so long as the same rule applies to women and men.

gsm, I wouldn't call saying a woman looks scruffy is "insulting".

I often look scruffy by the way but I'm hardly ever in the public eye.

The main complaint I remember was that was that it's not right to comment a woman's appearance. I think it is alright if it's based on things they can change, like clothes.

Ditto for men.

I would suggest that calling posters harpies contravenes guidelines.

Bumface

I was also appalled when the harpies hijacked another thread and turned it into series of weak trouser suit puns and random pictures of women in trouser suits. But then I'm just a "fun sponge."

so now I'm a harpie
wtf bumface