I apologise in advance for this blog. I have been out, and had drinks, with work and I am very grateful to be able to work in the current climate. But this riled me right up.
Earlier, in the pub, we were all standing about enjoying a nice pint, in my case cider (or a nice lame fruit or wine based drink for the ladies, allegedly) and I noticed our overall manager (let's call him Bob) was checking out my breasts, in a rather blatant manner.
I was drunk, but not stupid - I called him on it. I'm not worried he's my boss's boss's boss's whatever, I asked him why he had just done that so obviously (it was so obvious other people had noticed and suddenly became able to speak up against our admittedly otherwise cool "leader" who was earlier dissing the Tories, BNP blah blah and being agreeably left wing)...
His response?
He totally agreed he had been looking. Did anyone argue with this? Several other guys claimed ignorance and said "well, we've not noticed" and made "comical" eye shielding gestures. The women? Well in particular one lady, I'll call her Mavis, said "you have the best breasts in the department, they are amazing" or something along those lines. To be fair none of the ladies gave me any grief, but that's mainly because they know me I think.
I guess the whole point of this rather crap blog is: WHY do breasts become public property once they are 34DD or whatever size? Why are ANY breasts public property, to the extent a 32AA woman feels she should have a risky enlargement? Why do women accept this as well and nod along with men who are objectifying women in this way?
I am now home, and even though I was warned "Bob" was a letch (I told him this to his face) I still feel somehow I am in the wrong.
I had a great conversation with a woman in my dept today and she said, how would men feel if they were confronted by half naked pictures of their gender all over the papers and magazines and how she would love to do some sort of experiment where men would understand what it feels like for your body to feel like someone else's property. It is arguably why I didn't punch someone tonight!
04 June, 2009
02 June, 2009
"Bad Mother" Bad Science from the illustrious author of "A Playdate with Death"
The wittily-named Femail (geddit? geddit? just in case we hadn’t twigged that the rest of the paper is a tad male-dominated) is always a fine emetic read, but they really hit the jackshit jackpot recently with a guest spot from author Ayelet Waldman. Her article – here comes the train, little baby, because it’s really quite a mouthful – “Why it can be good to be a bad mother in a world where modern parenting has become hideously competitive”, unleashed on 28/05/09, boasts like all the best literary works an impressive twist in its tale, achieved chiefly by beginning quite reasonably.
The byline is deceptively encouraging as "Ayelet... argues that no woman is a perfect mother, and the sooner someone stands up for Bad Mothers the better". Was infiltration complete, I wondered on a first reading - had common sense, like MRSA and pig flu before it, finally destroyed the moronic inferno from within? Alas not; the Daily Mail is simply as incapable of balanced reporting of its own content as of the outside world. “Stand[ing] up” for anyone is by no stretch of any imagination (and lord knows their readership’s is a fevered one) what the charming Ms. Waldman proceeds to do.
I must confess, I have yet to delve too deeply into Waldman’s back catalogue, though there have been some passable reviews for her most recent works, such as Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, if not for her earlier Mommy-track Mysteries series (distinguished, if that’s quite the word, by distinctly Goosebumpesque dust jackets and worse titles than you can shake a B-movie at). But from reading articles such as this and the scintillating “Truly, Madly, Guiltily”, I really don’t envy her editor.
The plain and plaguing fact is, she just doesn’t know what she’s on about, as like the proverbial Blackadderian pencil she bounces pointlessly from one self-contradiction to another, without any apparent sense of, well, contradiction. It’s hard not to feel her next franchise should be a Mommy-track pantomime when mummy-bashing is at once “utterly unfair – because… no one hurls criticism like this at fathers” (OH YES, IT IS!) and yet sound grounds for a newspaper article because “so-called Good Mothers can be downright bad for their children” (OH NO, THEY’RE NOT!) until she remembers that it’s really “time we all accepted ourselves for… mothers who do our best” (OH YES… etc). This is no logical pre-empting of a counter-argument to reassert one’s original point; she just can’t make up her muddled mind.
Indeed, the more I eviscerate this article and research its author, the more inclined I am to agree with the reviewer on www.librarything.com who describes her debut novel, Nursery Crimes, as “Waldman's forum for rather nakedly communicating her own opinions and preferences [in a] self-indulgent, amateurish” manner. So far, so livejournal, and it wouldn’t really matter but for one thing; her petulant insistence on dragging feminism down with her.
Waldman is clearly dissatisfied with various things. Maybe it’s her kids, maybe it’s her mother (both get a good raking over in the article) or maybe she just likes a good moan – but none of these is justification for this cack-handed and irresponsible attack on the movement that gave her the voice to deride it in the first place. Like a Pantomime Dame approaching a banana skin, Waldman repeatedly misses her own points; oh yes, it is awful that parenting pressures are centred so one-sidedly on women, that the workplace has not yet caught up with gender equality, but oh no, it’s not her mother –sorry, feminism’s– fault.
The feminists of Waldman Senior’s generation did indeed “[sacrifice] much to give [women today] the opportunities they never had”, such as the right and expectation to work. So far, so fair – until she erroneously blames them for the fact “the workplace isn’t conducive to being a working mother”. If earlier feminists “were convinced they had sorted everything out for their daughters” they have been proven wrong; but they are not culpable for the work they started not yet having been completed. Neither the fact that Waldman’s own feminist ideals were shattered by “punishingly long” hours and missing her firstborn, nor the truth that some women probably do feel they had “better jolly well be Good Mothers” to justify the sacrifice of giving up their careers, are any indictment of feminism, but rather of the very forces it challenges. In attacking the effects of patriarchy and blaming them on feminism, Waldman pulls off a truly extraordinary non-sequitur.
But why? To spout such nonsense generally requires either acute stupidity or spite. In a Harvard graduate it is hard not to suspect the latter, particularly given her repeated reprobation of a mother depicted as the kind of Crazy Feminist™ Pat Robertson so feared. But actually, I don’t care why – and nor should anyone give a shit about Sophie on the swings or anything else Ayelet Waldman says or does or writes so long as she uses personal neuroses to legitimise sexism. You’d think such a self-trumpeting Former Classmate Of Obama’s might know better.
The byline is deceptively encouraging as "Ayelet... argues that no woman is a perfect mother, and the sooner someone stands up for Bad Mothers the better". Was infiltration complete, I wondered on a first reading - had common sense, like MRSA and pig flu before it, finally destroyed the moronic inferno from within? Alas not; the Daily Mail is simply as incapable of balanced reporting of its own content as of the outside world. “Stand[ing] up” for anyone is by no stretch of any imagination (and lord knows their readership’s is a fevered one) what the charming Ms. Waldman proceeds to do.
I must confess, I have yet to delve too deeply into Waldman’s back catalogue, though there have been some passable reviews for her most recent works, such as Love and Other Impossible Pursuits, if not for her earlier Mommy-track Mysteries series (distinguished, if that’s quite the word, by distinctly Goosebumpesque dust jackets and worse titles than you can shake a B-movie at). But from reading articles such as this and the scintillating “Truly, Madly, Guiltily”, I really don’t envy her editor.
The plain and plaguing fact is, she just doesn’t know what she’s on about, as like the proverbial Blackadderian pencil she bounces pointlessly from one self-contradiction to another, without any apparent sense of, well, contradiction. It’s hard not to feel her next franchise should be a Mommy-track pantomime when mummy-bashing is at once “utterly unfair – because… no one hurls criticism like this at fathers” (OH YES, IT IS!) and yet sound grounds for a newspaper article because “so-called Good Mothers can be downright bad for their children” (OH NO, THEY’RE NOT!) until she remembers that it’s really “time we all accepted ourselves for… mothers who do our best” (OH YES… etc). This is no logical pre-empting of a counter-argument to reassert one’s original point; she just can’t make up her muddled mind.
Indeed, the more I eviscerate this article and research its author, the more inclined I am to agree with the reviewer on www.librarything.com who describes her debut novel, Nursery Crimes, as “Waldman's forum for rather nakedly communicating her own opinions and preferences [in a] self-indulgent, amateurish” manner. So far, so livejournal, and it wouldn’t really matter but for one thing; her petulant insistence on dragging feminism down with her.
Waldman is clearly dissatisfied with various things. Maybe it’s her kids, maybe it’s her mother (both get a good raking over in the article) or maybe she just likes a good moan – but none of these is justification for this cack-handed and irresponsible attack on the movement that gave her the voice to deride it in the first place. Like a Pantomime Dame approaching a banana skin, Waldman repeatedly misses her own points; oh yes, it is awful that parenting pressures are centred so one-sidedly on women, that the workplace has not yet caught up with gender equality, but oh no, it’s not her mother –sorry, feminism’s– fault.
The feminists of Waldman Senior’s generation did indeed “[sacrifice] much to give [women today] the opportunities they never had”, such as the right and expectation to work. So far, so fair – until she erroneously blames them for the fact “the workplace isn’t conducive to being a working mother”. If earlier feminists “were convinced they had sorted everything out for their daughters” they have been proven wrong; but they are not culpable for the work they started not yet having been completed. Neither the fact that Waldman’s own feminist ideals were shattered by “punishingly long” hours and missing her firstborn, nor the truth that some women probably do feel they had “better jolly well be Good Mothers” to justify the sacrifice of giving up their careers, are any indictment of feminism, but rather of the very forces it challenges. In attacking the effects of patriarchy and blaming them on feminism, Waldman pulls off a truly extraordinary non-sequitur.
But why? To spout such nonsense generally requires either acute stupidity or spite. In a Harvard graduate it is hard not to suspect the latter, particularly given her repeated reprobation of a mother depicted as the kind of Crazy Feminist™ Pat Robertson so feared. But actually, I don’t care why – and nor should anyone give a shit about Sophie on the swings or anything else Ayelet Waldman says or does or writes so long as she uses personal neuroses to legitimise sexism. You’d think such a self-trumpeting Former Classmate Of Obama’s might know better.
01 June, 2009
Because wanting to be treated like equals is just like invading Poland
The goal of our collective writings as Feminazery is to be a group of free thinking feminists who believe in individual freedom.
Our goal is not to be a group of feminists hell bent on the destruction of the male gene, nor is it to promote any single world-view, to encourage hate, or to sew distrust. At our core is a paper that warps its readers’ minds to suspect, hate and fear anyone who is not "like us", that it promotes an agenda that is devoid of anything worthy, and claims to be reporting the news when all we can see is a hate filled, oppressive, xenophobic, hypocritical, greed loving, freedom hating, fashion fascistic, homophobic, and above all paranoid load of crap - which is unfortunately being read by the largest share of the newspaper reading public. That is the Daily Mail.
So we here at Feminazery seek to blog about the various failings of this foetid paper, but with the focus on women. Women, according to this paper and its readers are too fat, too thin, too misshaped, too old, too poorly dressed, too wrinkly, too botoxed, too flat-chested, too big boobed, not virginal enough, not sexual enough, too skanky, too whoreish, not whoreish enough, too happy, too sad, not working enough, not at home enough, not white enough, not motherly enough, not rich enough, too homosexual, too famous and too masculine. Having read articles and comments to articles that seem to follow these complaints we are sick to death of it and seek to retort in this haven.
Not all of us are female, but we are all Feminists. No matter what genes we have or how we identify ourselves, we recognise that within every intelligent person is a part of them that rejects this hate, this bile and wants to hold up something against it. However not all of us are liberals, not all of us agree to any particular left wing agenda or right wing agenda, we are all individuals with unique political, social and environmental ideals and thoughts. The only real political agenda we all share is that of being on the other side of any debate that seeks to denegrate human beings
The one thing we all stand for is the right of every person on Earth, regardless of sex, gender, race, age or creed to be treated as equal. This is us trying to do something towards that.
Our goal is not to be a group of feminists hell bent on the destruction of the male gene, nor is it to promote any single world-view, to encourage hate, or to sew distrust. At our core is a paper that warps its readers’ minds to suspect, hate and fear anyone who is not "like us", that it promotes an agenda that is devoid of anything worthy, and claims to be reporting the news when all we can see is a hate filled, oppressive, xenophobic, hypocritical, greed loving, freedom hating, fashion fascistic, homophobic, and above all paranoid load of crap - which is unfortunately being read by the largest share of the newspaper reading public. That is the Daily Mail.
So we here at Feminazery seek to blog about the various failings of this foetid paper, but with the focus on women. Women, according to this paper and its readers are too fat, too thin, too misshaped, too old, too poorly dressed, too wrinkly, too botoxed, too flat-chested, too big boobed, not virginal enough, not sexual enough, too skanky, too whoreish, not whoreish enough, too happy, too sad, not working enough, not at home enough, not white enough, not motherly enough, not rich enough, too homosexual, too famous and too masculine. Having read articles and comments to articles that seem to follow these complaints we are sick to death of it and seek to retort in this haven.
Not all of us are female, but we are all Feminists. No matter what genes we have or how we identify ourselves, we recognise that within every intelligent person is a part of them that rejects this hate, this bile and wants to hold up something against it. However not all of us are liberals, not all of us agree to any particular left wing agenda or right wing agenda, we are all individuals with unique political, social and environmental ideals and thoughts. The only real political agenda we all share is that of being on the other side of any debate that seeks to denegrate human beings
The one thing we all stand for is the right of every person on Earth, regardless of sex, gender, race, age or creed to be treated as equal. This is us trying to do something towards that.
And no, we are not waiting for a nice man. Or woman.
28 May, 2009
Boris Keep Your Promise!
We all know rape is a feminazi issue. As we may not all know, good old BoJo is reneging on his election promise to provide Londoners with anything approaching appropriate sex crime victim support - so much so, in fact, that we are now at risk of losing the capital's only remaining Rape Crisis Centre. Please help save it! To this end, any and all promotion of the campaign and its coming fundraiser (09/06, details also available on the campaign homepage) is greatly needed and appreciated.
19 May, 2009
The Motherhood Penalty
As any seasoned Mail-Watcher will doubtless be aware, being a mother and having a career are completely incompatible (unless, of course, you are a Terrible Person and don't care about your children, who will run amok while you selfishly indulge yourself by going to work and earning money. They will, of course, go on to have nine children by the time they're thirteen, forcing Broken Britain to hurtle towards hell in a handcart - (c) Richard Littlejohn - but that's a different article altogether)
So what of those women who do opt to work? It's no secret that there is still a pretty sizeable pay gap separating men and women in big business - the metaphorical 'glass ceiling'. Given that society is supposed to have moved on since the glorious 1950's, the days of Tupperware parties and depressed housewives on Valium, you'd think that this would be widely considered a Bad Thing.
Not so, squawks Penny Vincenzi, who covers all her bases in her opening paragraph by setting a scene filled with highly successful women who manage to juggle business and family (all of Vincenzi's successful woman friends are married, of course) But, herein lies the twist - they were successful BEFORE pesky equality legislation PC-ified our over-feminised society. Quoth Vincenzi:
Now, if you'll excuse my French, this is patently bollocks, and it's convenient for Vincenzi to paint her little social group as a microcosm of working women from 1970 onwards. HER friends were already successful, and that means that ALL women can be successful if only they'd really put their backs into it. Never mind that years of evidence can show that women have consistently been overlooked in the workplace - all the evidence Vincenzi needs is sat around a table quaffing wine. It's a woman's fault if she takes time off to give birth and finds herself replaced when she gets back. It's a woman's fault if she is sexually harrassed - she shouldn't have worn a miniskirt (god forbid we should have the freedom to choose what we wear, and if a miniskirt is acceptable within a company's dress code, then why on earth should a woman be penalised for wearing one?)
Then she lets loose with this gem:
Mhm. This is where Vincenzi stumbles over the straggly tail of her own logic. She hasn't asked the key question - where are the men in this scenario? Why aren't the men bathing the kids? Why aren't the men taking time off work to look after the babies they had a 50% stake in creating? Why are women singly shouldering the burden of childcare, and, more to the point, why are we being blamed for doing so when we are doing it out of sheer necessity?
This article is essentially a poorly veiled variation of the Fail's standard 'working women vs mothers', in which women are once again levelled the ultimatum: be childless and miserable, fly high in the boardroom (but ultimately remain unfulfilled) or be a good little woman, stay at home and don't strain your feeble woman's mind about matters that don't concern your gender.
And on that note, back to work, where I can work at being as good at my job as I can be (but still, not quite as good as a man)
So what of those women who do opt to work? It's no secret that there is still a pretty sizeable pay gap separating men and women in big business - the metaphorical 'glass ceiling'. Given that society is supposed to have moved on since the glorious 1950's, the days of Tupperware parties and depressed housewives on Valium, you'd think that this would be widely considered a Bad Thing.
Not so, squawks Penny Vincenzi, who covers all her bases in her opening paragraph by setting a scene filled with highly successful women who manage to juggle business and family (all of Vincenzi's successful woman friends are married, of course) But, herein lies the twist - they were successful BEFORE pesky equality legislation PC-ified our over-feminised society. Quoth Vincenzi:
Smiling sweetly at me over her glass of wine, she then added: 'All the whingeing that went on from women because they said they were being discriminated against, I just didn't get it. The truth was simply that they weren't good enough.'
Now, if you'll excuse my French, this is patently bollocks, and it's convenient for Vincenzi to paint her little social group as a microcosm of working women from 1970 onwards. HER friends were already successful, and that means that ALL women can be successful if only they'd really put their backs into it. Never mind that years of evidence can show that women have consistently been overlooked in the workplace - all the evidence Vincenzi needs is sat around a table quaffing wine. It's a woman's fault if she takes time off to give birth and finds herself replaced when she gets back. It's a woman's fault if she is sexually harrassed - she shouldn't have worn a miniskirt (god forbid we should have the freedom to choose what we wear, and if a miniskirt is acceptable within a company's dress code, then why on earth should a woman be penalised for wearing one?)
Then she lets loose with this gem:
very few women are actually comfortable working 12-hour days while their children are very small. Most of us go for a softer option - but that's not because we face male oppression, it's because we want to be home for bathtime.
Mhm. This is where Vincenzi stumbles over the straggly tail of her own logic. She hasn't asked the key question - where are the men in this scenario? Why aren't the men bathing the kids? Why aren't the men taking time off work to look after the babies they had a 50% stake in creating? Why are women singly shouldering the burden of childcare, and, more to the point, why are we being blamed for doing so when we are doing it out of sheer necessity?
This article is essentially a poorly veiled variation of the Fail's standard 'working women vs mothers', in which women are once again levelled the ultimatum: be childless and miserable, fly high in the boardroom (but ultimately remain unfulfilled) or be a good little woman, stay at home and don't strain your feeble woman's mind about matters that don't concern your gender.
And on that note, back to work, where I can work at being as good at my job as I can be (but still, not quite as good as a man)
12 May, 2009
The One With The Killer Heels
If you have the time, take a look at these links:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1179068/Kim-Kardashian-puts-best-foot-forward-pair-snake-print-killer-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1078991/Sarah-Jessica-Parker-puts-best-foot-forward-killer-gold-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1056632/Lily-Allen-turns-heads-ANOTHER-pair-killer-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1061507/Tiny-Kylie-steps-killer-heels-indulges-spot-retail-therapy-Paris-style.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1054360/Girls-Aloud-star-Nadine-Coyle-puts-best-foot-forward-steepling-inch-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1158886/Statuesque-Charlize-Theron-stalks-red-carpet--inch-spiked-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-558033/Well-heeled-Gwyneth-Paltrow-steps-kinky-stilettos.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1016541/Gwyneth-puts-best-foot-forward.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-565110/Gwyneth-Paltrow-test-drives-ANOTHER-pair-super-high-heels--cobblestone-street.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1016564/Ah--thats-better-At-Gwyneth-finally-puts-flat-shoes.html
The Gwyneth Paltrow ones are especially riveting. They did a whole series on her, Gwyneth's footwear every day for a fortnight.
I could make the point that the Fail obviously has a vested interest in keeping women in footwear that is painful, dangerous and limits movement and capability.
I could mention how they can't seem to keep to one editorial stance, veering as they do between glamourisation of heels (even when the tone is sarcastic, like in Paltrow's later articles), condemnation of "ugly" or "orthapaedic" flats and scary scary articles in the health section about how high heels ruined some poor woman's back and/or life.
If I were more of a wag I'd explore the possibility that someone at the Male has one hell of a foot fetish (Look at the number of close-ups! They're feet, for crying out loud! Clad in shoes! It's not unusual!).
As it is, out of all these observations and more, I wanted to make this one simple point: if anyone passing by here is any doubt as to why feminism is relevant in the 21st Century, it's because women are still being judged, every day, on the smallest, most inconsequential decisions in a way that men never have and never will be.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1179068/Kim-Kardashian-puts-best-foot-forward-pair-snake-print-killer-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1078991/Sarah-Jessica-Parker-puts-best-foot-forward-killer-gold-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1056632/Lily-Allen-turns-heads-ANOTHER-pair-killer-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1061507/Tiny-Kylie-steps-killer-heels-indulges-spot-retail-therapy-Paris-style.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1054360/Girls-Aloud-star-Nadine-Coyle-puts-best-foot-forward-steepling-inch-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1158886/Statuesque-Charlize-Theron-stalks-red-carpet--inch-spiked-heels.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-558033/Well-heeled-Gwyneth-Paltrow-steps-kinky-stilettos.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1016541/Gwyneth-puts-best-foot-forward.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-565110/Gwyneth-Paltrow-test-drives-ANOTHER-pair-super-high-heels--cobblestone-street.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1016564/Ah--thats-better-At-Gwyneth-finally-puts-flat-shoes.html
The Gwyneth Paltrow ones are especially riveting. They did a whole series on her, Gwyneth's footwear every day for a fortnight.
I could make the point that the Fail obviously has a vested interest in keeping women in footwear that is painful, dangerous and limits movement and capability.
I could mention how they can't seem to keep to one editorial stance, veering as they do between glamourisation of heels (even when the tone is sarcastic, like in Paltrow's later articles), condemnation of "ugly" or "orthapaedic" flats and scary scary articles in the health section about how high heels ruined some poor woman's back and/or life.
If I were more of a wag I'd explore the possibility that someone at the Male has one hell of a foot fetish (Look at the number of close-ups! They're feet, for crying out loud! Clad in shoes! It's not unusual!).
As it is, out of all these observations and more, I wanted to make this one simple point: if anyone passing by here is any doubt as to why feminism is relevant in the 21st Century, it's because women are still being judged, every day, on the smallest, most inconsequential decisions in a way that men never have and never will be.
05 May, 2009
The Evolution of The Ministry of Truth
Evolution! Black people! The horror!
Actually, to be fair to the DM, the article on the recreation of an early human skull from assorted fragments is not bad. It's basically lifted from the Radio Times, and the programme itself seems rather interesting. The fun starts in the comments. An individual from Amsterdam is currently top-rated* with this gem:
"It seems to me that this result was not modelled on actual human remains. But rather on the image the Ministry of Truth has on what a modern European OUGHT to look like"
That's right. You're being brainwashed by the Ministry of Truth, undoubtedly a nu-LIARbore device into making you think like one of those lentil-eating feminist anti-racist types. And if you don't think you're being brainwashed, then it just goes to show how well the brainwashing has worked!
Anyway. Right. Layscience has more commentary on the sheer faily failness of the fail in the comments, but I have sumarised them as follows;
However, and feel free to disagree, the Prize for Shoe-Horning goes to a David Harrison from Sunderland, with this gem (thanks go to Fingerless Gloves for the Prize, which I believe is this here... well, I don't know what it was, but the cat found it).
"Talk about keping a low profile!!! After seeing what Nu labour and the P.C brigade has done I bet he wishes he never came back!
*Have we at Feminazery mentioned that we love the Fail's new ratings system? We do. Just so you know.
Actually, to be fair to the DM, the article on the recreation of an early human skull from assorted fragments is not bad. It's basically lifted from the Radio Times, and the programme itself seems rather interesting. The fun starts in the comments. An individual from Amsterdam is currently top-rated* with this gem:
"It seems to me that this result was not modelled on actual human remains. But rather on the image the Ministry of Truth has on what a modern European OUGHT to look like"
That's right. You're being brainwashed by the Ministry of Truth, undoubtedly a nu-LIARbore device into making you think like one of those lentil-eating feminist anti-racist types. And if you don't think you're being brainwashed, then it just goes to show how well the brainwashing has worked!
Anyway. Right. Layscience has more commentary on the sheer faily failness of the fail in the comments, but I have sumarised them as follows;
- Evolution is a lie. Everybody knows that finches just change the shape of their beaks or something.
- The Aryan Race can't be decended from someone who is (oh the horror) not white.
- The Bible!!1!eleventy
However, and feel free to disagree, the Prize for Shoe-Horning goes to a David Harrison from Sunderland, with this gem (thanks go to Fingerless Gloves for the Prize, which I believe is this here... well, I don't know what it was, but the cat found it).
"Talk about keping a low profile!!! After seeing what Nu labour and the P.C brigade has done I bet he wishes he never came back!
*Have we at Feminazery mentioned that we love the Fail's new ratings system? We do. Just so you know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
