Also, the piece I was due to tear to shreds – a sickening article in The Telegraph where a quite frankly amateurish “scientific” study on rape at the University of Leicester was further misinterpreted to say that a. women who dress provocatively deserve a raping and b. men who sleep around a bit are more likely top be rapists (puh-lease!!) – was pulled and apologised for by the aforementioned pseudo-intellectual right-wing rag. Cheers to Ruth for pointing it out though.
However, I have found something else to get my hairy, gluten-free goat. The Heil website leads with this piece:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1198795/Elle-Macpherson-shows-fine-Bodywork-46-gleams-car-launch.html
To spare you the horror of having to read these loathsome twats’ ‘work’, I will summarise:
- Elle MacPherson has some cellulite just above her knees.
- The fact that Elle, 45, has some cellulite just above her knees is of some surprise.
- Elle is 45. Elle shouldn’t be 45, or something.
- And, the biscuit-taker (direct quote):
'Creping is also more common in skinnier people. Fat tends to pad out the skin and supports it more. If you have a very low body mass index like Elle does then basically you have skin travelling over muscle with no fat in between. Whereas if she was slightly plumper, she would not have the creping phenomenon as much.'
Ooh I could crush a grape.
So women should not have cellulite. They also, it seems, should not get older. Especially not if they are supermodels. Furthermore, they should not be skinny. Yet, inevitably, people get a. older and b. their metabolism slows down.
So what to do? Cull all women above the age of 35. Especially if they’re really attractive former models. Shit, time’s running out Karo…
Posts
is that telegraph article still around anywhere at all? who wrote it, and have they been disciplined? would love to read it.
ReplyDeleteWhy is the Fail obsessed with knees?
ReplyDeleteHere's a summary of the issues surrounding the Telegraph piece. It was written by a guy called Richard Alleyne, who's their 'science' correspondent, but mostly seems to write about ridiculous PR nonsense.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think it's fair to blame the study for being 'amateurish' - it was an interesting dissertation project by an MA student, and perfectly decent research given its status, which got picked up by the press after she (again, reasonably) read out the paper at a conference.
[finally, point b - that men who sleep around are more likely to be rapists - was actually strongly supported by the study; it was point a that was utter misogynistic, made-up drivel]
Sorry, I thought the study was garbage: the sample of 'men' used was ludicrous - people they knew at local rugby and football clubs - unless, of course, the article lied about this and it was a broader, wider sample.
ReplyDeleteIn my view A. was as (in)valid as B. as the study was carried out entirely, it seemed from the report, by asking this narrow, statistically unviable sample of men what they felt was appropriate behaviour in varying circumstances. We know A. to be wrong, just wrong, but then by default seeing as the information for both 'findings' was gathered from the same 'sample' of men, B. by default is just as ludicrous.
But, again, all this depends entirely on whether the report accurately reflected the findings and methodology of the study.
Do you have links to the study itself? Would be interested to see how the masters student presented the method and findings.