(no subject)
Jan. 9th, 2008 01:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackI suppose, if I was linking to provocative newspaper articles, it was wrong of me to leave this one out, that I've seen several people mention: Tad Safran
I'm not sure I can manage to say anything *about* it, though. A quick google shows a large number of people eloquently describing all the ways its offensive. The guardian awarded him the "misogynist of the year award"
In brief:
* American women spend £500-£1000 a month on grooming (including cosmetics, tanning, fitness, etc), and British women are overweight, unwashed, and have no fashion sense.
* American women lack social grace and are more concerned with money
* Not spending £500-£1000 a month on grooming is evil, a personal attack on Tad Safran.
Also:
* Yes, the article is deliberately provocative.
* Whether that's a conscious decision, either to get readers, or (in theory) to provoke thought, or a natural result of the observation that writing in generalisations produces those results without trying, I don't think there's any doubt it's not supposed to be a carefully weighed analysis.
When I read it, it just seemed amazing that someone could say all that, so offensively. But was he actually saying anything, or just wrapping air in offensiveness? I assume I agree with people reading this, but I don't know what he (and people who empathise with the article) might think:
* For instance, *is* there a disparity in grooming across the Atlantic?
* If so, is it gender linked?
* If so, does it matter?
* For instance, if he grew up in England, and got a job in America, is it possible that the people he knows in America tend to be professional men and women, who have high pay and long hours, and those people are more likely to groom in the manner he describes?
Other points I notice:
Bridget Jones ... is a sad, lonely, overweight, posh-sounding chain-smoker in her thirties with a drinking problem and no dating prospects. She then, one day, goes to the gym for an hour or two, spends £200 at Topshop, reads a self-help book and, lo and behold,...
* I know people disagree about Bridget Jones, but that's not the impression I had
* Firstly, I thought the "Bridget Jones was too fat to be attractive" thing was a myth perpetuated by fashion magazines. Do we have a genuine man who, regardless of his right to decide, given the choice, actually thinks Bridget Jones (or rather, Renee Zelweiger) is too fat to be attractive? WTF?
* Secondly, my view of the film may be distorted because I'm able to read[1] and know the original, but that's not how I saw it.
Years of working around horses had given her the hands of an 80-year-old Siberian coalminer ... It was more shocking than the time I took a girl’s hand after chatting her up for an hour and discovered she was missing the two middle fingers on it.
* He doesn't explicitly criticize the girl who'd lost her fingers. But it feels like he does.
* He no doubt wouldn't advocate it if asked, but I just get the feeling next week's article will be "Why people with mild scarring should hide in cellars in case I accidentally mistake them for real people and am traumatized"[1]
Tad: I apologise if my response was over the top. I'd always rather be polite, even if I'm criticizing someone, but I got a bit carried away. I hope you see everyone else's point. (Hell, you've probably apologised for being offensive by now and I just didn't notice.)
[1] See, look, exaggerations can be funny when they're lambasting I object to.
I'm not sure I can manage to say anything *about* it, though. A quick google shows a large number of people eloquently describing all the ways its offensive. The guardian awarded him the "misogynist of the year award"
In brief:
* American women spend £500-£1000 a month on grooming (including cosmetics, tanning, fitness, etc), and British women are overweight, unwashed, and have no fashion sense.
* American women lack social grace and are more concerned with money
* Not spending £500-£1000 a month on grooming is evil, a personal attack on Tad Safran.
Also:
* Yes, the article is deliberately provocative.
* Whether that's a conscious decision, either to get readers, or (in theory) to provoke thought, or a natural result of the observation that writing in generalisations produces those results without trying, I don't think there's any doubt it's not supposed to be a carefully weighed analysis.
When I read it, it just seemed amazing that someone could say all that, so offensively. But was he actually saying anything, or just wrapping air in offensiveness? I assume I agree with people reading this, but I don't know what he (and people who empathise with the article) might think:
* For instance, *is* there a disparity in grooming across the Atlantic?
* If so, is it gender linked?
* If so, does it matter?
* For instance, if he grew up in England, and got a job in America, is it possible that the people he knows in America tend to be professional men and women, who have high pay and long hours, and those people are more likely to groom in the manner he describes?
Other points I notice:
Bridget Jones ... is a sad, lonely, overweight, posh-sounding chain-smoker in her thirties with a drinking problem and no dating prospects. She then, one day, goes to the gym for an hour or two, spends £200 at Topshop, reads a self-help book and, lo and behold,...
* I know people disagree about Bridget Jones, but that's not the impression I had
* Firstly, I thought the "Bridget Jones was too fat to be attractive" thing was a myth perpetuated by fashion magazines. Do we have a genuine man who, regardless of his right to decide, given the choice, actually thinks Bridget Jones (or rather, Renee Zelweiger) is too fat to be attractive? WTF?
* Secondly, my view of the film may be distorted because I'm able to read[1] and know the original, but that's not how I saw it.
Years of working around horses had given her the hands of an 80-year-old Siberian coalminer ... It was more shocking than the time I took a girl’s hand after chatting her up for an hour and discovered she was missing the two middle fingers on it.
* He doesn't explicitly criticize the girl who'd lost her fingers. But it feels like he does.
* He no doubt wouldn't advocate it if asked, but I just get the feeling next week's article will be "Why people with mild scarring should hide in cellars in case I accidentally mistake them for real people and am traumatized"[1]
Tad: I apologise if my response was over the top. I'd always rather be polite, even if I'm criticizing someone, but I got a bit carried away. I hope you see everyone else's point. (Hell, you've probably apologised for being offensive by now and I just didn't notice.)
[1] See, look, exaggerations can be funny when they're lambasting I object to.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:12 pm (UTC)A little common sense will prove this incorrect; the average American income is 28k or so a year, or about $2300, so spending $1000-$2000 of that on "grooming" only works if you count things like "paying rent on the apartment where I keep my makeup" and "paying for electric to run my hot water" and such.
We spend $20 a month for a gym membership, $3-4 on shampoo and conditioner (though we could easily spend $30 if we liked the name brand stuff and if I didn't know how to mix my own detangler for our kiddo's hair), maybe $5 on soap and body wash, $2 on lotion... and that's for 3 of us.
I would easily believe that 500-1000 pound figure for a year, though, because I'm incredibly cheap and I spend about half that lower figure every month on two adults and one child; not everyone is that smart about money or that willing to live without.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 05:02 pm (UTC)I reckon I spend at least the equivalent of $15 a month on shampoo and conditioner (I have hip length hair), so I would love to hear about making my own detangler so I didn't have to slather so much conditioner on it :-).
no subject
Date: 2008-01-09 05:27 pm (UTC)The same stuff is in detangler as in conditioner, but it's watered down. The problem with conditioner is there's too much of it and you have to rinse it off. If you apply it as needed to the problem areas, you won't use so much.
This seems to work okay on the kiddo's mid-back-length hair, which is very curly and coarse; I don't use anything more than just a little bit of conditioner, because my hair's so straight it doesn't tangle at all. (At least, not until it hits mid-back; I remember being shocked the first time I grew it out and it tangled on me.)