Legs-it

[Shyheels]

A real headline - honest to God - on one of Britain's major daily newspapers.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/28/daily-mail-legs-it-front-page-sexist

The mind boggles. 

How dispiriting it would have been a fly on the wall at the editorial conference that approved that front page, or eavesdropped on the haw-hawing amongst the middle-aged adolescents huddled around the chief sub's desk when they came up with this. Amazing. As one commentator put it, this is what happens when you let your drunken pervy uncle edit the newspaper.

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by Shyheels

[Heelster]

So now we know where the Benny Hill script writers work. I'll comment further after I stop laughing.

[Shyheels]

Just when you think there really are no more dinosaurs left in the world, one comes lumbering out of the underbrush,...

[meganiwish]

I'm going to assume that you weren't deliberately hoping that people who don't really pay attention would think it was The Grauniad.  A more honest link would have been . . .  I stand corrected, you can't easily find it, if at all.  It is troubling that a paper that considers itself above The Sun should do that.  One might almost think that there's an issue they don't want to discuss.

[Heelster]

Well Megan - - It's obvious what they do want to discuss.

[Shyheels]

On 29/03/2017 at 2:46 AM, meganiwish said:

I'm going to assume that you weren't deliberately hoping that people who don't really pay attention would think it was The Grauniad.  A more honest link would have been . . .  I stand corrected, you can't easily find it, if at all.  It is troubling that a paper that considers itself above The Sun should do that.  One might almost think that there's an issue they don't want to discuss.

I did look for a direct Daily Mail link, but there was none that showed the front page in all its glory.

I would also say though, that the Grauniad's self-righteous outrage was a little much given the massive coverage they gave to Theresa May's leather trousers not so many weeks ago, and more recently her appearance in American Vogue magazine in which her looks and style were roundly disapproved of by the Guardianistas.  But of course, coming from them I guess we are supposed to think of that as 'worthy journalism'. After all, they are the Graundiad and above doing anything else.

Nearly as silly as the Daily Mail's headline were all the outraged column-inches protesting that men would never be subjected to such demeaning coverage, with focus on their clothes and looks and style. Nonsense. Men are certainly pilloried for their dress and looks - David Cameron'd hair, Boris Johnson's hair, and what about the time last year when Obama wore a brown suit and got all the stylists and commentators wringing their hands because he was wearing a more daring sort of colour. Daring? Brown? Really? 

Nor is it necessarily wrong for a politicians style to be a matter of comment - although not a lead story. In terms of commentary I would say that Theresa May is worthy of praise for her dress sense in that she is willing to push the boundaries of what is considered 'acceptable' for a woman in her sixties  by wearing leather trousers or thigh boots whenever she feels like it, ad what's more manages to carry off the look. It speaks of self-confidence, strength of character and a willingness to break from the herd and not follow along blindly - good attributes in a politician and a person. Worthy of comment - just not the lead story.

The Daily Mail's headline was crass, but it was crass because it was crass, nothing more. It reduced the key story of the day to an adolescent guffaw at a childish word play and the legs and shoes of the women in the photo, not the important constitutional issues they were discussing. 

 

 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

I'm inclined to say QED, but I'll content myself with raising an eyebrow at the notion of a brown suit.  Brown?  Really?

[Shyheels]

He wore a tie with it, Megan

And why should men be confined to navy, black and grey?

Is so lively a colour as brown really so disturbingly radical? 

Edited March 31, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

I approve of the tie , of course.  Did I imply that his suit should be black, grey or navy?  I don't think so.  I'm just unconvinced by brown suits.

[Shyheels]

Okay, well what should be the appropriate colour range for men's suits? We've just ruled out brown and as you say, they needn't be navy, grey or black. 

How about bringing back the not-so-humble soot suit in lilac, lemon, carnation or coral as I suggested in another thread? 

Women coukd get away with wearing any of those colours in a corporate environment without a second glance. Why should men not be allowed the same freedom? 

[nyenor]

Shy heels, I think you are referring to a ZOOT suit, not a soot (which would naturally be black!!).

Edited April 1, 2017 by nyenor

[Shyheels]

Yes - autocorrect doing its thing again....

Fixed it 

Edited April 1, 2017 by Shyheels

[SF]

The world is on fire and this is what "they" choose to headline, rather sad......

[meganiwish]

20 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Okay, well what should be the appropriate colour range for men's suits? We've just ruled out brown and as you say, they needn't be navy, grey or black. 

How about bringing back the not-so-humble soot suit in lilac, lemon, carnation or coral as I suggested in another thread? 

Women coukd get away with wearing any of those colours in a corporate environment without a second glance. Why should men not be allowed the same freedom? 

Any colour they want.  Why indeed not the Zoot suit in the said colours?  As for brown, all I said originally was that I raise an eyebrow at the notion of a brown suit.  What one wears is a statement, and if what you want to say about yourself is expressed by brown, go for it.

[Shyheels]

I believe Obama's was more of a light tan. I thought he looked pretty smart. 

Why not zoot suits in said colours - a man would not be allowed to show up to work in them. Should parliament meet to discuss this injustice?  

[meganiwish]

19 hours ago, Shyheels said:

I believe Obama's was more of a light tan. I thought he looked pretty smart. 

Why not zoot suits in said colours - a man would not be allowed to show up to work in them. Should parliament meet to discuss this injustice?  

Probably not, but if some were allowed to wear zoot suits and others not for no good reason, then it would be a matter for the courts.

[Shyheels]

Why shouldn't this injustice be discussed? Why should men be required to conform to stereotype? I am not suggesting women should either, but there is a big hoo-ha about women's dress codes at the moment, and none for the male side of the equation. Men are expected simply to submit to society's demands and stereotype, hang their imaginations on the coat rack by the door, and do what is expected/required. 

There is no 'good' reason - other than expectations and norms - for bankers or brokers not to show up for work in lilac, lemon or carnation zoot suits. It is certainly not a health or safety issue. Yet if some bloke dared show up for work dressed like that, you can be sure they would be sent home to change (if they weren't actually fired) and there would not be thousands of people signing petitions to parliament in support of that chap's right to come to work in bright colours. 

Edited April 3, 2017 by Shyheels

[nyenor]

Can you imagine this type of report appearing in the media? President Trump, in all his satirical elegance wearing a lilac suit, blue shirt, red knee length tie and white Nike sneakers greets Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who is wearing a pink suit and an orange shirt open at the neck with three inch heeled open toe sandals. The mind boggles. What a sight it would be though.

Edited April 3, 2017 by nyenor

[Shyheels]

Indeed, a dazzling sight! Although no doubt Megan would be upbraiding Trudeau for not wearing a tie.

But why not inject more colour into the world? Every picture you see of world leaders and their cohorts is always the same - huddled masses of sombre blue suits, looking like so many cookie-cutter men. Stereotypes who proceed to live up to the stereotypes, and dressing the part. They need to step out of character and be somebody - anybody - other than merely a sum of mass expectations.    

[meganiwish]

Just wear your bright suits and have done with it.  Don't blame someone else that you're scared to wear anything other than navy.  Disingenuousness is the second refuge of the scoundrel.

[Shyheels]

I am not being the least disingenuous. Simple truth. No man would be willing to lose their job by wearing an "inappropriately" coloured suit, or would quit their job in righteous umbrage because they were sent home to change - especially since they would know damned well there would be no recourse open to them as there is for women. No petition to parliament signed by tens of thousands of outraged members of the public, no blistering media campaign, no parliamentary enquiries calling witnesses and proposing legislation. Nada. A man would just be expected to "man up" and get on with it; stop being silly... He would know this and do as he was told, and expected to do as 'the breadwinner'

it is this difference in expectations and outcomes that is unfair.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Ichthys

[Shyheels]

Fish? 

Christianity? 

I don't get it.

Or are you thinking of two intersecting arcs? In which case I still don't get it.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

No, it's the people who use the fish sign to make out Christians are an oppressed minority. No longer being in a position to oppress doesn't constitute being oppressed.

[Shyheels]

That is a total non sequitur to this discussion.

It addresses none of the issues but merely seeks to evade and obfuscate, muddy the waters as it were, rather than present a counterargument that speaks directly to the matters at hand. One can only assume that you cannot mount a convincing counter arguement and you know it. 

this is a matter of blatant inequality and, yes, if you like, oppression.

Or are you really saying that the only sense of oppression that matters is that experienced by women, and any sense of oppression felt by men (on an issue of similar weight - dress codes) is either illusory, deserved or doesn't matter?

To borrow a line from Orwell - whom I know you admire - is it your contention then that some people are more equal than others? 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

Do you doubt that some are more equal than others?

I don't engage in argument (though I do spell it right) counter or otherwise.  I merely offer my thoughts.  So men feel oppressed?  Well, welcome to my world.  Shall we do something about it?

[Shyheels]

I don't doubt that some are indeed "more equal than others" but it is not my contention that they should be. Or that such a thing should be accepted, let alone glorified. 

It is much the same as saying two wrong make a right. 

I can and do spell argument correctly. My iPad pursues its own random spellings, inserting and inverting letters at will. As you must know, or at least must have guessed. 

And it is not argument, but rigorous debate. "Argument" being used in that widely accepted context.

So I will accept the sideways step and paranthetucal snipe about spelling as a de facto concession. 

Moving on. What shall we do about this oppression? I am open to ideas. I am already busily not wearing ties, doing my little bit, but my obscure life and odd work arrangements means nobody could care less what I wear. Nevertheless I do fight my corner in my own small way. As for the bigger picture, I am open to ideas...

[meganiwish]

21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

 . As you must know, or at least must have guessed.  

Touchee.

Actually, I don't really have a problem that some are more equal than others.  If you've ever sat on any type of committee you'll understand it.  The chairman, and in the case of the government the PM is first among equals.  You can't run your committee without it.  Some de facto equal has to have some authority.

I don't think there's any oppression going on here.  I think there are plenty of people who want to be a victim of oppression, without actually going through the unpleasantness of being oppressed.

Nick Hornby makes the point rather well in 31 Songs.  Talking about Nils Lofgren's protest song 'Keith Don't Go', protesting that Keith Richard would be arrested for drug offences if he went to Canada, Hornby makes the fair point that Keith could, just not go.  I'd suggest that 's just what you're doing.

[Shyheels]

Indeed there are plenty of people who love to see themselves as victims of oppression - it is how they define themselves. Often, I suspect, there is a degree of cynicism in it, the professional victim who creates an issue and uses uses it as a vehicle for self promotion or advancement.

The woman who started all the fuss about wearing (two inch) heels was an office temp and a wanna be actress. And what publicity she has had! One can't help but feel that were she offered a leading part in a high budget remake of Sex and the City and her character loved and wore five inch stilettos - that she suddenly would love them too. I doubt very much she would demand that her character be rewritten so that she wore only sensible shoes or, failing that, that she would tell the producers they could go take a flying leap. 

You cite authority as a rightful example of some being more equal than others. No. That is comparing apples and oranges, and being somewhat mischievous about it. All are, or should be, equal before the law and have similar recourse to redress.  Including those in authority. Or is it your contention that politicians and police officers, being in authority, should naturally and properly enjoy extra judicial privileges not open to the plebs? 

Orwell's use of the phrase was to illustrate unfairness and  was expressed deliberately in a way that exposed the nonsense of such claims as the Pig's in Animal Farm. Equality is equality. 

Edited April 8, 2017 by Shyheels

[meganiwish]

21 hours ago, Shyheels said:

Orwell's use of the phrase was to illustrate unfairness and  was expressed deliberately in a way that exposed the nonsense of such claims as the Pig's in Animal Farm. Equality is equality. 

That's your reading of it, and valid as far as it goes.  You need to read my posts here and elsewhere more discerningly too.