FYI or die

Now, Miranda Devine is a bit of an obvious punchline, so I promise that this will be my only post on her. Because its early days and I’m still not quite sure what this blog is, I think it’s okay to go for a cheap shot.

It’s been a couple of years since I’ve paid the Sydney Morning Herald any real attention, primarily because they give this woman a platform. I remember an article late last year in New Matilda which pretty much summed it up: If I Make You Angry Enough, Maybe You’ll Keep Reading. It’s a fairly apt analysis of the editorial opinion that keeps Devine in print.

So today, over my coffee and beans, I was reminded of how woeful the world is when Sydney’s relatively progressive broadsheet spits out this drivel (In an effort for the links not to feed into more advertising dollars generated by this woman, I’m not going to link to the article, but put forward some of the gems of anti-feminist bullshit she regularly espouses).

Tony Abbott was right to be angry about the hysterical word-parsing generated by his ”no means no” comment.

Yes, Ms Devine. Only an “angst-ridden feminist” would criticise the Opposition Leader for invoking language that is inextricably tied to sexual assault and harassment four times. Using a phrase that has long been attached to anti-date rape campaigns and which is part of common vernacular purely for this association isn’t a casual remark, it’s belittling sexual violence and the actions taken to prevent it. For this to come from Abbott’s mouth is inexcusable. For it to be defended is appalling.

Devine then so deftly shifts the conversation around to the $37m case against former DJ’s CEO with the parallels being the “hysterical overreach” common to both. I can’t help but think Devine would feel $37 would be hysterical overreach from Fraser-Kirk  given Mark McInnes has already suffered: “He lost his job, got a comparatively paltry pay-off, became a national joke and had to leave the country in disgrace.” Miranda, babe, you’re totally missing the point.

I feel it’s a bit rudimentary to be even pointing out these backward, sexist and intellectually dull standards from Devine, but today’s column was actually outrageous.

The worst Fraser-Kirk alleges of McInnes would have distressed most women but it should not ruin her life - unless she dwells on it.

…

Comments by the designer, Alannah Hill, making light of Fraser-Kirk’s lawsuit, tell you how complicated sexual politics can be today, with some women evidently welcoming McInnes’s passes. Hill, 47, identified herself on Tuesday as the “brunette” mentioned in the lawsuit to whom McInnes referred in a text message to Fraser-Kirk: “I could have had guaranteed sex with that brunette last night but I wanted you.” At a David Jones’ fashion parade on Tuesday, Hill told reporters: “I wish he’d [McInnes] have touched me up. I threw myself at him.”

But, mostly, it’s these salient words of warning that Devine closes on which seals the deal.

Hysterical legal hyperbole does not help women of any age. Greedy lawsuits only damage women in the workplace by making male colleagues resentful and wary.

To this, I’m left absolutely speechless.

Hey universe. This is the only Miranda the world needs.

(No disrespect to other Mirandas was intended in this post. You’re probably cool too.)