Jan Moir: I'm thinking she's a piece of shit

I don’t think I’ve written anything about Jan Moir before, which is surprising considering what a giant turd she is. Her byline in the print edition reads: ‘Are you thinking what she’s thinking?’, to which – if the answer is yes – you’d want to rip your brain out through your nose and kick it very hard into traffic. She is, quite simply, typical of the women-hating, smug, patronising no-nothing that populates the Mail writing team. Today’s article has particularly pissed me off because I happen to be working on an online project on rape counselling and the issues she misunderstands today are precisely the sort of thing the website is being set up to correct.

Her article title, frankly, is a disgrace and makes me want to punch my computer screen: JAN MOIR: ‘What on earth was strangled Stacey’s mother doing letting a monster waltz into the heart of her family?‘. I’m not sure where to start with this, I guess firstly we should consider that ‘Stacey’s mother’ has just had a daughter possibly raped before being strangled to death, shortly followed by a man she loved and trusted for 18 months commit suicide. Naturally Jan Moir thinks that Stacey’s mother should be feeling even more miserable as somehow she is to blame for all this – for letting the ‘monster waltz into the heart of her family’.

This is one of the myths that surrounds any kind of sexual assault: that somehow because a sexual attacker is labelled a ‘monster’ they must somehow look and act like one – therefore, how could a person let someone who looks and acts like a monster into their home? The truth is the majority of sex attacks are carried out by people you know, often intimately. Sex attackers do not have leers, scars or tattoos stating the risks involved in being with them, they appear to society the same as we all do.

As in this case Darren Walker appeared to be the perfect family man, as Jan writes:

He was such a lovely family guy. We never dreamed he would do anything like this,’ said Miss Lawrence. ‘We are struggling to come to terms with the fact that he was not the man we thought he was.’
Oh, Roxanne. I don’t want to add to your grief. You have lost your little girl and are torturing yourself because you know her last moments on earth were painful and frightening.

That is a terrible burden for any mother to bear. Added to this, your partner of almost 18 months, a man you had planned to marry and whom you allowed – perhaps even encouraged – your children to call ‘Dad’ is dead.

So you are not just mourning the loss of your daughter and your partner. You are mourning the loss of the partner you thought you had.

That’s a relief, Jan Moir doesn’t ‘want to add your grief’, hold on though, what’s this we get to the part where Jan Moir relishes in sticking the knife in with unfounded accusations:

This is all utterly dreadful. Yet a big part of me can’t help but wonder: for God’s sake, Roxanne, what on earth were you thinking?
Without a moment’s doubt or suspicion, Roxanne Lawrence let a monster waltz right into the heart of her family life.

The implication that there was no ‘moment’s doubt or suspicion’ is basically accusing Roxanne Lawrence of being a bad mother, of it all actually being her fault. This is typical of the sexual assault scenario portrayed in tabloid newspapers, somehow the victim is to blame for not realising that the person was a sex attacker. If a boyfriend rapes you, it is your fault for being with him – ‘couldn’t you tell he was a monster? You silly girl!’. If a man enters your family for 18 months and seems perfectly nice, but then strangles your daughter you still somehow should have known he was really a beast all along – you silly girl.

This attitude of blaming the female victims of sex crime is a regular part of the Daily Mail ethos, and what makes it worse is that it so frequently comes from the mouth of female columnists. Here this entire column is dedicated to slagging of the victim of crime, whilst the perpetrator only merits a throwaway label. Somehow we are supposed to believe that sex crimes wouldn’t really happen unless women are silly enough to get close to people. Journalists just cannot admit that life is a little bit more complicated than good and bad, black and white. They cannot comprehend that sex attackers are often suave, charming and utterly convincing; to journalists they are always monsters with cloven hooves and horns, consequently anyone who falls victim to them deserve everything they get for being so stupid.

However, the problem with Jan Moir is that she even acknowledges the difficulty of spotting that Darren Walker was intent on assaulting and killing her daughter, but still turns round and lays the blame solely at the feet of the family (complete with ‘broken Britain’ overtones):

It is not stranger-danger children should be worried most about. It is what is going through the heads of their principal carers.
The truth is, at least 80 per cent of abusers are not strangers, but individuals who are known to the family.

This is a familiar dilemma to everyone – to social services, the police and the courts – except, it seems, these vulnerable women taken in by such sexual opportunists.

They fall for the ruses of men like Darren Walker, who are plausible, cunning, organised and intelligent, who pay attention to the mothers, all the while disguising their feelings for the boy or girl who is the true focus of their lust.

The contradictions here are staggering: one minute, everyone is admitting that people known to a family (which implies a level of trust / friendship); the next, stupid women don’t appreciate that people they know are actually intent on assaulting their family. The actual point contradicts because social services, police and courts are actually pointing out just how hard it is to protect your family against attackers who are able to convincingly become part of them. Even Jan Moir admits that people like Darren Walker are ‘plausible, cunning, organised and intelligent’, which seems to explain precisely why women are ‘taken in by such sexual opportunists’ and why Jan Moir should be ashamed of herself for blaming the victim in this case.

Just to make it absolutely clear that the family is to blame Jan Moir adds:

poor Stacey Lawrence. She was a popular girl who loved animals and dreamed her little girl dreams of being a zookeeper.
Yet her life ended because no one close to her was paying attention to what was really going on in the family home.

Yes, although as Jan Moir admits sexual predators are intelligent, normal, cunning and utterly convincing it is clearly the family’s fault for ‘not paying attention’.

Jan Moir, a question, just what the fuck are you thinking?

I hope Jan Moir owns a dog, a bloody big dog, and that one day after years of domestic bliss the dog turns one day and bites her fucking face off. Just so I can laugh at her for letting a monstrous animal into her house for all those years, and how I can call her stupid to fall for its puppyish charms and companionship when all along it just wanted to eat her chubby face. Perhaps then her family would be accused of ‘not paying attention’ and the dog would escape censure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *