Some guy is insulting women again
Ok, GRR.
Last week the Times published an 'article' by this tool Tad Safran (Who?) on how British women don't groom themselves enough compared to American women and lots of women became furious and yadda yadda because, y'know, he sounds like a chauvanist pig. He is a chauvanist pig, if his writing is anything to go by, although I think there's more than a hint of bullshit sensationalism in there; a quick check on Google says this guy is some nobody in Hollywood who's done nothing of any note, so I suppose he's going to make a 'name' for himself by pissing off loads of women instead. So this week he's back with another article, sticking to his guns and has basically devolved into just being a jerk; spouting off insults and making gross generalisations about women sitting on their arses eating Toblerones and watching EastEnders instead of following a beauty regimes (If that's what he thinks the average woman does I'm kind of curious if he thinks that black people say "Massa" all the time, or if Japanese people all act like extras from Samurai movies). It's not even an article, it's not anything other than sensationalist misogyny with spite and vitriol added in for flavour and a huge cry of "PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE!".
He comes off as a tool and he's not even worth getting that angry over because he's just chirruping for attention, but what's pissing me off is that The Times is publishing this crap at all. This is a paper that aspires to be informative, interesting and culture-filled but they barely report news well (so many times I've seen a story in the Times, read the article and then had to read elsewhere for actual details or found that what I've read is seriously lacking in facts), their editorials are absolute bullshit and their 'reviews' are some of the most ill-informed, narrow-minded drivel I've ever read, usually with lame attempts to be amusing. There was one about Stardust comparing it to Tolkien (?) and said any fans of the film should just start speaking Elvish because it's just so geeky - whuh (Hm, fairytale and fantasy are distinctly different genres, to begin with...)? The paper is a piece of crap, it's shoddy journalism trying to pass itself off as high brow and well informed, but even taking that into account these Tad Safran articles still seem to be, um, sinking lower. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from The Sun (although I suppose it's not nearly nationalistic enough) or some tabloid, not from a publication that regards itself as a serious source of news.
I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people what to look like and as far as I'm concerned, if he's not waxing his chest, ensuring he has a six pack and well-defined abs, getting a man manicure every month and ensuring his feet don't look like Hobbit appendages then he can shut the hell up and shout into the abyss; just because it's more socially acceptable for men to look like shit and exert minimal effort on their appearance (of course this is not all men, although in general men do have to expend less effort than women do, but I know some downright vain and product obsessed guys and I love 'em for it *grin*) doesn't mean that someone as obviously aesthetically sensible as Tad can get away with being a hairy blob, so if he's not PERFECT LOOKING I'm gonna be disappointed, I tell you. If a woman is comfortable wearing no make up then more power to her, I say. It took me years to be able to leave the house without wearing make up and I'm proud that I can, that I'm comfortable enough with how I look - how I really look, without accentuation or anything else - to show it to the world. I wear make up anyways because, quite frankly, I like it (seriously, I really enjoy applying make up, I always have, since I played dress up and raided my mum's make up box when I was little) but I also think it's important to be able to walk outside fresh faced and not feel horribly exposed. I think that if a woman opts for something more comfortable than stylish then she shouldn't be castigated for it because who the hell is anyone to tell another human being to put themselves in severe discomfort for the sake of fashion? If that's the choice someone makes them fair enough, I have more than my fair share of painful shoes, but I will not let someone - anyone - tell me I should wear stilettos when they can faff about in 'stylish' trainers and comfortable, supportive loafers.
Argh, ok, didn't want to get worked up, but the idea of someone telling other people how they should look pisses me off.
Out of curiosity, what can one use a student card on? I know there's concessions at certain cinemas, at museums and other places that one would expect a student to go to, but my mother stormed in last night saying a student friend of hers uses his student card (mature student, obviously) on Amazon and all sorts of bookshops and railway and this, that and the other and...huh? Can one use a student card on all these things? What can you use a student card on?
I have one day left of work after today and then I'm off on Christmas holidays. HAHAHAHA!
Last week the Times published an 'article' by this tool Tad Safran (Who?) on how British women don't groom themselves enough compared to American women and lots of women became furious and yadda yadda because, y'know, he sounds like a chauvanist pig. He is a chauvanist pig, if his writing is anything to go by, although I think there's more than a hint of bullshit sensationalism in there; a quick check on Google says this guy is some nobody in Hollywood who's done nothing of any note, so I suppose he's going to make a 'name' for himself by pissing off loads of women instead. So this week he's back with another article, sticking to his guns and has basically devolved into just being a jerk; spouting off insults and making gross generalisations about women sitting on their arses eating Toblerones and watching EastEnders instead of following a beauty regimes (If that's what he thinks the average woman does I'm kind of curious if he thinks that black people say "Massa" all the time, or if Japanese people all act like extras from Samurai movies). It's not even an article, it's not anything other than sensationalist misogyny with spite and vitriol added in for flavour and a huge cry of "PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE!".
He comes off as a tool and he's not even worth getting that angry over because he's just chirruping for attention, but what's pissing me off is that The Times is publishing this crap at all. This is a paper that aspires to be informative, interesting and culture-filled but they barely report news well (so many times I've seen a story in the Times, read the article and then had to read elsewhere for actual details or found that what I've read is seriously lacking in facts), their editorials are absolute bullshit and their 'reviews' are some of the most ill-informed, narrow-minded drivel I've ever read, usually with lame attempts to be amusing. There was one about Stardust comparing it to Tolkien (?) and said any fans of the film should just start speaking Elvish because it's just so geeky - whuh (Hm, fairytale and fantasy are distinctly different genres, to begin with...)? The paper is a piece of crap, it's shoddy journalism trying to pass itself off as high brow and well informed, but even taking that into account these Tad Safran articles still seem to be, um, sinking lower. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from The Sun (although I suppose it's not nearly nationalistic enough) or some tabloid, not from a publication that regards itself as a serious source of news.
I don't think anyone has the right to tell other people what to look like and as far as I'm concerned, if he's not waxing his chest, ensuring he has a six pack and well-defined abs, getting a man manicure every month and ensuring his feet don't look like Hobbit appendages then he can shut the hell up and shout into the abyss; just because it's more socially acceptable for men to look like shit and exert minimal effort on their appearance (of course this is not all men, although in general men do have to expend less effort than women do, but I know some downright vain and product obsessed guys and I love 'em for it *grin*) doesn't mean that someone as obviously aesthetically sensible as Tad can get away with being a hairy blob, so if he's not PERFECT LOOKING I'm gonna be disappointed, I tell you. If a woman is comfortable wearing no make up then more power to her, I say. It took me years to be able to leave the house without wearing make up and I'm proud that I can, that I'm comfortable enough with how I look - how I really look, without accentuation or anything else - to show it to the world. I wear make up anyways because, quite frankly, I like it (seriously, I really enjoy applying make up, I always have, since I played dress up and raided my mum's make up box when I was little) but I also think it's important to be able to walk outside fresh faced and not feel horribly exposed. I think that if a woman opts for something more comfortable than stylish then she shouldn't be castigated for it because who the hell is anyone to tell another human being to put themselves in severe discomfort for the sake of fashion? If that's the choice someone makes them fair enough, I have more than my fair share of painful shoes, but I will not let someone - anyone - tell me I should wear stilettos when they can faff about in 'stylish' trainers and comfortable, supportive loafers.
Argh, ok, didn't want to get worked up, but the idea of someone telling other people how they should look pisses me off.
Out of curiosity, what can one use a student card on? I know there's concessions at certain cinemas, at museums and other places that one would expect a student to go to, but my mother stormed in last night saying a student friend of hers uses his student card (mature student, obviously) on Amazon and all sorts of bookshops and railway and this, that and the other and...huh? Can one use a student card on all these things? What can you use a student card on?
I have one day left of work after today and then I'm off on Christmas holidays. HAHAHAHA!