Just to say

Jesus wept 😂

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.🤷🏼‍♀️

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.

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

Yes. Scum, pint sized loser …

The harpie bitch here is using her real name 😂

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.

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.

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. 😁

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.😉

Now the tabloids are dripping with the jewelled finery of the ‘public event ‘ of a months’ long Indian wedding. Happily, among the fabulously arrayed ‘great and the good’ is Boris Johnson making it clear that Carrie’s campaign to tidy him up didn’t last long.

Primrose53

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.😉

Now, if AR had been a Conservative politician I wonder if some posters would have been so quick to leap to her defence?

Elrel

Now the tabloids are dripping with the jewelled finery of the ‘public event ‘ of a months’ long Indian wedding. Happily, among the fabulously arrayed ‘great and the good’ is Boris Johnson making it clear that Carrie’s campaign to tidy him up didn’t last long.

Ooh, who's getting married?

Mukesh Ambani, dont you know?
And a load of fancy guests.

Joseann

Mukesh Ambani, dont you know?
And a load of fancy guests.

Sorry, I don't know.

But I recognise those two, possibly.

GN does appear in a tiny bit of the article, which isn't fair, given the range of helpful topics we do cover. Exactly. Journalists are well known for being selective and biased in their reporting. CB is no exception

How utterly nauseating and sickening.
Ostentatious, obscene wealth.

The challenges faced by slum children in India include abuse, neglect, exploitation, poor socio-economic conditions, lack of protective environment, and health problems like malnutrition.

About 7.8 million children, accounting for 6.07%, live in urban slums. Children living in slums are 1.3 times likely to suffer from diarrhoea than those in non-slum areas. About 300 million people living in urban India face exclusion from essential health services and other services like safe drinking water, sanitation, education, and access to essential services and most often their births or deaths are not registered. Children are prone to diseases and disasters.

I feel sick just reading about that family and their six month wedding celebrations.

do you think she reads gransnet though? or do you think she is tipped off? as it doesn't really come up on google does it? (I am now going to try)

She's probably on The Dark Side.

Sometimes they criticise Gransnet but, quite honestly, we have nothing on them!

well i never
I google angela rayner trouser suit discussions and it that thread was the first thing that comes up
followed by the article linked and then;
womensagenda.com.au/latest/angela-rayners-green-suit-why-is-it-so-difficult-for-women-in-power-to-dress-correctly/