Wednesday, 25 May 2011

Gagging the Girls - How society silences women

At last Mr Ryan Giggs has been named as the mystery footballer that had an affair with Imogen Thomas; lets be honest, it was all bit emperor’s new clothes weren't it - but alas he is legitimately named. Is it me, or do these so “gagging” orders (imposed by wealthy men who have extra marital relations with younger less wealthy women) reeks of misogyny, which appears to be upheld by our so called justice system.

So if you are a wealthy footballer who is married, and wants to have a little bit of fun on the side, then decided it is getting bit too messy, here is what to do: gag the bitch! But when you impose a super-injunction that forbids the press from naming you, but allows the entire nation to know who this “fallen woman” is, don’t be surprised when you are named and shamed. Yes this is direct at you Giggsy! It is simply called Karma and she bites: hard. I’m not calling for a medieval public execution of one’s character, what I’m asking is why even name her in he first place, especially if you wanted to keep it all hush-hush?

Admittedly this gagging order provided Giggs the perfect opportunity to hide in shame and allow this woman to take the responsibility of his behaviour: a voiceless woman, as this is what patriarchy loves the most. I mean she wasn’t sleeping with her self, now was she? But it appears once you are a wealthy male with lots and lots of money you can in effect purchase the law for your own means. But Imogen is not the only woman to be silenced by these orders over so called calling for privacy. I personally don’t think it is even about privacy, it is just about showing off because hey have penises and they can do whatever they like with it. In our materialistic society, where money denotes power, these rich men are drowning in it. When they think they might get caught, they go running for cover by screaming "wolf" vis-a-vis privacy. The real question here is the inequality in the criminal justice system surrounding these super-injunctions which is only open to rich men and these women's legitimate right to freedom of speech. It like we have regressed by a few centuries, where women should be seen and not heard. It seems absurd to me, that a (male) judge can provide anonymity to a man, but happily allows this woman’s names to splash across the tabloid and have her reputation in tatters. By Giggs going all Gestapo on us he simultaneously silenced Imogen and revealed her identity in one single act. At her expense, he cowardly hid behind this gagging order to "protect" himself and supposedly his family. But this was really about himself, his reputation and his penis and not necessarily in that order. The real victims here, are his wife and children, but they had nothing to do with being "protected," if he had really thought about them, just that once, he would not have been playing ball in Imogen’s garden.

I am not condoling Imogen’s behaviour, they were both wrong, but I would say proxy to her being a woman she was scapegoat for leading him astray. All I can see is this, because she did not have the financial clout to buy the best lawyers in town, she was unable to protect her reputation and hide behind her own injunction. If according to her publicist, Max Clifford, she had no intention of even selling her story and she even told Giggs this, then why did he go wrong slapping tapes o people's mouths? I guess a guilty conscience troubles the soul.


Post a Comment

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More

Powered by Blogger | Printable Coupons