more on the daily mail

So, having admitted to a one-off look at the Daily Mail website, below, I thought I might as well have a glance at it properly. When I worked in London I'd often pick up copies of the Mail on the tube, so I quickly got used to it's snide, vicious tone and unpallatable politics. I never see it these days, however - and that viciousness gives me a shock. On the front page of the site, in quick succession, are two feature stories. See if you can spot the common theme:

Wasting away: Madonna reveals her 'sinewy' arms: "The saying goes one can never be too rich or too thin - but these pictures of Madonna may disprove that theory"

Nice dimples, Posh ... shame they're on your sun-kissed legs: "With that pout permanently in place, there was no chance of dimples ever showing on Victoria Beckham's unsmiling face. Maybe that's why they've turned up somewhere else ".

I bet if I kept looking I could find, say, twenty stories on that site, in only a few minutes, which expressed that same misogynistic disgust towards successful women.

relating to people

"Went to buy some shoes today- so that I feel like a normal human being. Didn't work- oh well. Bought some shoes- still feel like I can't relate to 99.9% of the earth's population. Hmmm, why did I think buying shoes would make any difference?"

It's funny, this thing of relating to people – naturally as we go through life we encounter all sorts of people in all sorts of situations, and sometimes we are open, generous, sympathetic and warm, and other times we close ourselves off because of some prejudice or vulnerability or hostility we harbour. Sometimes when we want to be part of things we can't force ourselves out, because we're scared of it not happening. At other times, we buy shoes or something, like Nat. And we either fit then or we don't fit.

Do I relate to other people? I think I do, but I don't think that rationally. Just as Natalia has decided that she can't relate to 99.9% of the earth's population, I have decided that I can. I think I am like everyone else, and hate the idea that I’m not. No idea why I think this, or why I tell myself to think this, when it plainly isn't true, when it's impossible. The truth is that rules don't apply when we talk about our way of interacting with the world, or at least the only rules that do apply are largely self-imposed, although I suppose that if you're grossly overweight or outrageously attractive there are certain societal restrictions which are hard to fight. But if I relate to people it's largely because I choose to; I'm sitting on the train, for example, listening to some kid talking shit, trying to impress his mates. I didn't have friends like his when I was a teenager, nor want them, and nor did I talk like him or think like him. But I don't feel alienated listening to his bragging and machismo – I feel affectionate towards him – I was totally different, but still a boastful and arrogant kid in many ways. I remember wanting desperately to impress too, so he's alright by me, even if I would have hated him then.

Talking of the grossly overweight and the outrageously attractive – I watched several programmes about stick-thin models and diet-culture last week, some good and some bad. It's hard not to feel awful for teenage girls and the bodies that they are supposed to emulate. I saw Sophie Ellis Bexter on TV on Sunday. I like her a lot, and not just cause I think she's tasty – she's had a lot of criticism about her looks too, specifically the shape of her face, but she's bright and engaging. She's got, I note, the most amazing legs you'll ever see – they're magnificent in a kind of Darwinian sense; each one is about six feet long and absurdly slim etc. Obviously these freakish pins are a kind of miracle, not something you can work towards, but I couldn’t quite figure out if she was making things worse by wearing a miniskirt and allowing the popworld cameras to linger over them at every opportunity – nor of I was betraying my values by being happy to look at them. Any teenage girl who sees them is liable to just give up and head straight for the comfort-eating stash. On the other hand, why shouldn't she make the best of a great figure? It's a hard one, especially when you’re talking about a celebrity who you know is clever and thoughtful, rather than one equipped with not much more than an attractive face/body. I dunno. Anyone?

in the dock again

A quick note to direct readers over to the Art of Noise blog, where I am currently on the receiving end of a bit of a thrashing in the 'In The Dock' feature, where I'm trying to defend misyogynistic hip hop against the forces of good. Not having much luck, clearly. Extracts from my - and Caskared's - argument below:

Prosecution:
The medium can’t help but be reductive, and there is no moral obligation or accountability to society, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. There is an argument that nekked ladies is a celebration of the female form, that not liking it is fusty and the women really want to be nakedy. But is it their choice, and do they also want to be reduced to being at disposable service to the men-folk? Of course some yes, and I’m teetering on the brink of so many huge discussions here... but my basic point for this little rant is that misogynistic hip-hop gives an acceptable face and makes popular the idea that women are only here to look good, and to be subordinate to men, supporting an environment that allows sexism to continue. Calling women a ho, bitch, yeah, funny, only not really.

Defence:
Hip-hop can be unpleasant in a variety of ways – chiefly in its rampant misogyny. On the other hand, it’s often wildly creative, articulate and honest; it has its roots in celebration and liberation and is often created in an environment of poverty and exploitation. Deriding it as "misogynist hip-hop" means having to ignore a wonderful tradition of black-hearted story-telling, exhibited to stunning effect in songs like Eminem’s ‘Stan’, Biggie’s ‘Things Done Changed’ ("My mom's got cancer of the breast / Now ask me why I’m motherfuckin' stressed") or Slick Rick’s ‘Lodi-Dodi’. Rap may be better WITHOUT sexism, sure, but that’s not the way it works – hip-hop is dark, unique, shocking, offensive, frustrating, sensational.

Arguments in full here.

Now I bet you'll all go and vote for the prosecution, won't you, you sods.

blue peter and sexual bimbos

I didn't link to the Guardian article attacking Blue Peter's decision to employ former Miss Northern Ireland 'stunna' Zoe Salmon when it appeared in the paper last week, although I meant to, because it was interesting stuff. I've not seen Blue Peter - which has been the BBC's flagship children's magazine show for decades - in a long time, but the article, by Kate Figes, was an interesting yet oddly partisan attack upon Ms Salmon, who is apparentlty the epitome of the blonde and brassy bombshell, and nothing at all like the lovely Janet Ellis, which won't do at all.

"Since [her appointment], her semi-naked body has adorned the tabloids and men ooh-aah over her tastiness on websites. She has a degree in law but you wouldn't think so from the way she pouts on screen, acts dumb when it comes to anything intelligent, wears skimpy, tight clothing and squeals and giggles in a "girly girl" way when she looks at something as terrifying as a spider. She rarely seems comfortable around children and talks to them in slow, patronising tones. She comes over as insincere and fatuous and my daughters don't like her any more than I do."

The article made several very good points about the problems associated with having a presenter who seems to embody those values - overt sexuality, body-image issues, gender stereotyping - which the "long history of warmth and substance" in Blue Peter has sought to contest, or at least defer 'til a little later. Not being familiar with Zoe Salmon I can't comment directly, but I suspect that her shtick is not markedly different from that employed by fellow kids TV presenters Ferne Cotton and Holly Willoughby, both of whom regularly dress up and play dumb for the audience's amusement. People do, however, get terribly defensive about Blue Peter, which makes the indignation all the greater.

This morning I picked up the paper to find a double page of letters responding to Kate Figes's article; most agreeing that Ms. Salmon is an innapropriate host and, implicitly or explicitly, concurring that her behaviour is 'self limiting' and 'sexist'. Several made the point that the article veered uncomfortably from journalistic comment into personal attack, however.

Interestingly, of ten letters, six were from women (and all damned the presenter in pretty strong terms) and four were from men (all of whom defended her), although one of those was the editor of Blue Peter, so you would expect his support. Generally speaking - although I feel very sorry for Zoe Salmon, who has now had on two consecutive Tuesdays woken to find herself singled out as an airhead and a bimbo - I sympathise with the critical position. It is now almost impossible to turn on a television without another manifestation of the thin and beautiful aesthetic presenting. It hadn't occurred to me that Blue Peter - which incidentally I never liked - followed the same cycle of objectification and stereotyping.

It also seems hilariously narrow-minded, however, to imagine that Blue Peter should be some kind of haven from the rest of the world. Although it's undoubtedly important that it should not submit to the lowest common denominator, it's naive to think that its exclusion in some way counterbalances the vast amount of sexual stereotyping which is endemic on all television from Hollyoaks to Top Of The Pops, which stares out from almost every magazine cover and is lauded directly and indirectly in the media in new and inventive ways on a daily basis.

The Guardian reprinted a small photo of Ms. Salmon clad in a bikini at the bottom of the page today, and while it was - perhaps deliberately? - blurred, that didn't stop me squinting at it for a good thirty seconds. I feel I ought to admit that, having assumed my high moral tone moments earlier.

Nevertheless - two interesting articles, either way. The first, titled 'Hello Boys', is available to read here, and the second, 'Blue Peter - sexed up and dumbed down?', is here. Any opinions welcome.

sad bastards

According to an article in the Independent today, titled Men consider lap dancing to be 'normal fun':

"Men view a trip to a lap-dancing club as a normal and acceptable form of entertainment and the industry is now so mainstream that many refuse to believe that the women who dance are being exploited, or that there is anything wrong in paying for their services."

I don't know anyone who considers going to a lap-dancing club normal. What the article goes on to reveal is that the survey is of men who already frequent lap-dancing clubs, rather than men in general. A bit misleading, then - it should really be titled "Men who pay money for lap dancing consider lap dancing to be 'normal fun".