(no subject)

[jack]

I 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.

Comments

(frozen) Yes, the article is deliberately provocative.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

In retrospect, I used that wording advisedly. Lizzip asked, "was he trolling", and while I think it's clear what he's doing, I don't know if it's trolling, I think the definition is still filling in.

Making up deliberately offensive opinions, especially ones that are "supposed" to be so over the top they're obviously false, is unambiguously trolling.

Arguing in good faith, however insane a proposition, isn't trolling (though may seem like it).

But in real life, on the internet, and in newspapers, there's often an intermediate position. Someone has an opinion, and makes generalising, exaggerated comments based on that with a deliberate disregard for being clear or polite, in a forum where they know the views are provocative.

Children often work like this, either from a lack of imagination in coming up with provocative opinions, or as a natural way to tease people with opinions they disagree with, or as a devil's advocate technique in order to get responses and information. And then they go and do it online to strangers.

If you're running a forum (or a newspaper), you have to decide if someone's behaviour is *solely* calculated to offend, or if they're redeemable, and where you draw the line of what you're prepared to accept. It might be unclear whether it counts as "trolling" or not.

missing the two middle fingers

[ewx.livejournal.com]

“You seem nice, but do you mind if I count your fingers before chatting you up?”

[1ngi.livejournal.com]

I'll be surprised if Tad Watsisface ever gets a date ever again in the western world. Poisonous little man.

[cornute.livejournal.com]

"American women spend £500-£1000 a month on grooming (including cosmetics, tanning, fitness, etc)..."

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.

[pavanne.livejournal.com]

Oh, I read that. I concluded that a) life is too short to read Times Women Comment pieces (yet I still do so, hating myself...) and b) the guy does admit somewhere near the end that it's more fun to go down t'pub with a British (normal-eating, heavy-drinking) woman. Since Fun eventually beats Beautiful in most matters of the heart, I decided fair was fair, and that it's such a decidedly backhanded compliment to high-maintenance American women, that it's probably meant to be backhanded.

I did think he was missing the point of Bridget Jones though (perhaps deliberately). She definitely doesn't get lucky because she's changed. She gets lucky despite it - or, to put it another way, her neuroses about her appearance (and by extension, those of many normal women) is quite unjustified.

I'd also defend the 'lost two fingers' anecdote. It would be a bit of a surprise to anyone, and he doesn't say "and so I quickly made my excuses and left". I think his point there is that the girl who'd lost two fingers couldn't help it, while horsey girl could. His point is that women can make themselves attractive with sufficient investment, and should do so - not that those who are just ugly should stay in. I don't agree, but I don't think that borders on discrimination on grounds of disability.

i don't think this comment is phrased very well

[pizza.maircrosoft.com (from livejournal.com)]

it occurred to me last night that there is a class of chick-lit which puts forward the viewpoint that self-confident women with lives of their own will always be bothered to look good, keep their hair cut in a flattering cut, not go to the supermarket without makeup - while the downtrodden ones with no sense of self worth will be the ones ambling around in old jogging pants and hair greasily flopping around their unmadeup faces.

this is nothing like the extent of what tad is saying, but it's taken me a while to realise that this is really not necessarily true...

the thing is, if you subscribe to this idea, then you don't go out to the shops looking a mess unless you're feeling really can't-be-bothered and lazy, so you perpetuate it. (not smelling bad is really politeness, on the other hand).