This week the big news in the media world has been the ‘super injunction’. Premiership Footballers and television personalities do seem to like having their cake and eating it.
I wouldn’t exactly describe myself as a feminist but I think it is completely unfair that rich men can get away with having affairs without being named whereas the women they sleep are left to face the full press onslaught.
I think this is particularly harsh when the women involved are single and aren’t technically cheating on anyone however morally questionable you think their actions are.
You have to remember it is the men that normally have a wife and family waiting for them at home.
Like most people I have read the rumours about who the mystery footballer and TV celebrity are. One I was surprised by the other not so much. He has had been covering up his infidelity for years whilst portraying an image of a perfect family man. Why is he being allowed to get away with it?
I hope that the pressure on the Government to get rid of super injunction continues. If that is not possible maybe super injunctions should mean anonymity for the woman and man involved.
Ok maybe I do have a bit of a feminist streak!
Why do these women deserve anonymity? They have stolen somebodies husband… I’m sure if you were in the families position you wouldn’t want her protected, these money grabbing, husband stealing women should be named and shamed.
However the other person involved, I am totally up for naming and shaming them, however have you not thought of the families involved… they wouldn’t want news of their husbands sordid affair splashed all over the newspapers, its humiliating, especially if they choose to stand by their husbands.
In my opinion super injunctions should be allowed, however it should be the family of those wronged that should have to apply, rather than these celebrities trying to preserve their image. It should certainly NOT cover women who sleep with men they KNOW are married!
I see your point but I think the men involved are the ones in the wrong. They are the ones that are married and should learn to respect their wedding vows they are the ones causing the pain for their family.
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
However the women know full well what they’re doing pursuing a married man, they know ultimately that they’re stealing him from his wife, so id say they were more in the wrong than the men…
I don’t really agree Bemused. Both parties are arguably in the wrong, but if the woman is unmarried she isn’t cheating, even if her behaviour can be questioned. And we don’t know who persued who in every case. The footballer in question didn’t have to cheat on his partner even if this woman persued him (if thats the case), he wasn’t forced to, although clearly he knows what he did was wrong otherwise he wouldn’t want an injunction preventing us finding out about it. The woman in question claims she also wanted the affair kept secret, not to sell her story, and had offered to co-operate fully with the footballer, and was then astonished when he cast her adrift and found herself the subject of a injunction, rather than being protected by it as he was. Pretty cowardly behaviour and all because he values his whiter than white image apparently.
In only one alleged case I am aware of has a woman sought an injunction, as has supposedly the male involved (although I should point out in this case the woman has been denying she has had any affair in the first place never mind persued an injunction). Otherwise all the superinjunctions have been sought by males. One of the actors had a affair with a co-star, both of them were married and so equally at fault. Yet he finished the affair and he then had her sacked from the show. He keeps his job but she dosen’t. He then gets an injunction to prevent her revealing the real reason for her departure from the show, to preserve his own nice guy image. The court gives him everything he wants, but shows no regard to her rights whatsoever. And as for the other actor or actors, he/they allegedly slept with a prostitute. I presume she dosent ask the men concerned whether they are married and certainly in the case of one of the actors I doubt she even knew who he was until she looked him up. If youre even moderately famous and sleep with a prostitute while having a “family man” image, then you are very foolish indeed.
Does seem to me that the injunctions are largely being granted by males, for males, and the rights of the women involved seem of no consequence. Maybe this is less important in the case of prostitutes just hoping to make money from newspaper exposes but some of these women are having their lives damaged by these men, then not not only being allowed to tell the truth publically about what has happened but also being threatened with prison if they so much as discuss the matter privately with a journalist or lawyer. Rather a worrying development.
But its not the men the injunctions are protecting… its their families… they have to come to terms with their cheating… should they really be humiliated in the public eye too….
If the man has no morals the women should not indulge them… if they know their married they should not be life wreckers and try to steal another woman’s husband in my opinion… I can see where your coming from but the injunctions for the men do protect the families from unnecessary embarrassment… whereas the women are in the wrong… end of (so are the men… but again there is the family to think of…)
Pingback: SUPER Injunction – the morals of the ‘guilty party’ | suzanneday