Lady soldiers? Whatever next?

[webofevil]

Today’s Metro headline about the Brits detained in Iran, particularly Faye Turney, was needlessly mawkish: “A prisoner, a pawn—but above all, a mother”.

Surely this is nonsense. Surely, “above all, a soldier”. Several other papers have also followed this sickly journalistic recipe: “Will she see her child again?” and all that. A good question, and one she will certainly have asked herself when she set off for military operations in Iraq.

This stand-off with Iran is all very silly and could yet escalate, though it really shouldn’t, but it’s intriguing to watch a press that forever claims to be fighting against government control of its news agenda so swiftly and willingly pump out propaganda that would make any Ministry of Truth proud. “They’re attacking innocent mothers. Will your sister be next?”

Comments

[slightlyfoxed.livejournal.com]

I would be surprised if none of the chaps with her are fathers, but that's a much smaller chip in tabloid roulette. Man go out, hunt, find food. Woman stay home, see child grow, bake fondant fancy. And so forth.

[strictlytrue.livejournal.com]

I think this is it in a nutshell. The papers aren't producing propaganda as such, just reverting to (stereo)type. They've found an Angle - the "human interest" in the "story".

It would be extremely easy, if they so wished, to give over acres of coverage to how pathetically transparent the actions of the Iranians are, and how their actions have no legal basis whatsoever, but why do that when you can pile on the sentiment, and tap into archaic notions of gender roles?

[chiller.livejournal.com]

Don't be daft! Everyone knows men don't have relatives. They walk alone. Without breasts.

[lebeautemps.livejournal.com]

Hey, did someone mention cake?