That didn’t last for long

I was so delighted to find a lovely feminist takedown of silly research* in the New Zealand Herald. Things are getting better, slowly, slowly, a teaspoon at a time.

It didn’t last long. This is what they’ve got on their front page now.

The image shows two celebrities (I don’t know who – I’m kind of out of touch because I just don’t do celeb culture) from a gallery of celebrity shots. The text under the shots reads: Too much or too little? A new study claims to have established the ideal amount of flesh women should have on display to attract a mate, so how do the celebrities’ wardrobe choices measure up?

Then you are invited to click through and have a look at what the women are wearing and make a judgement about whether or not they have the right amount of flesh on display to attract a mate. The captions under each photo assess how much of each woman’s skin is showing.

Well, that’s them lippy feminists put back in their place then.

***************

*I’ve changed the link to the original column in The Independent. I see no reason to reward the NZ Herald with extra clicks. And I’ve changed the link in my previous post.

About these ads

5 responses to “That didn’t last for long

  1. Well I don’t suppose that’s surprising though. Media editors change their standards more often than they change their underwear. I was reading an article on The Punch yesterday about how men don’t judge women by their bottoms, and in order to illustrate, they showed a picture of several women’s bottoms, and a man’s face amongst them.

  2. Then again, you never know. They may not have been women’s bottoms at all. They may have been stunt bottoms.

  3. I like saying the word ‘bottoms’, which is probably why I’ve repeated it in the above comments. Does it count as objectification if you only say the word ‘bottoms’, instead of look at them? Okay, on that bum note, I’ll quit now.

  4. Thank you for that fine contribution, TimT. I’m not sure what it’s a contribution to, but whatever it is, thank you.

  5. Sometimes it seems like online journos just see the word ‘bottom’ (one for you TimT) and throw in a photo of a bottom, without actually reading the context. But that rubbish in the Punch was terrible.