Image: Cali4beach Usually I write about what I want. A while ago I wrote about UniLads and was informed that giving them the oxygen of publicity wasn't going to help shut them down. Of course the oxygen of publicity probably did up UniLad's site stats, but it also drew sponsor's attention to the content of the site and a complete overhaul was required. A half-assed warning on the site regarding content that the easily offended might hackle at is not a triumph for those who rallied against the UniLad content. But it is a reaction. Had everyone kept schtum their lips pursed as a prudish hen's arse, the blog would still be going, with no indication that it was unacceptable.
A similar thing is usually filling up the Squeamish Bikini Twitter timeline. Usually regarding everybody's favourite publication, The Daily Mail. RTs reminding us the entire content of the site is linkbait. That we are falling into the trap the deliberately designed, getting outraged by the content and sharing it for others to have a similar reaction. You're doing nothing but expanding their audience numbers!
Here's the thing. Would you say that about a cruel dictator? They're only doing it for the reaction, pay no attention to them. Or sweatshops? You're just giving the shop name free publicity! If someone you know is being racist or sexist or homophobic would you fail to mention it? If not directly to the racist friend (you have terrible friends by the way) then to your other more palatable friends.
Here's the thing. Would you say that about a cruel dictator? They're only doing it for the reaction, pay no attention to them. Or sweatshops? You're just giving the shop name free publicity! If someone you know is being racist or sexist or homophobic would you fail to mention it? If not directly to the racist friend (you have terrible friends by the way) then to your other more palatable friends.
| It's peculiar to apply an entirely different method to deal with bad behaviour when it comes to posts online. Or rather articles printed in newspapers and posted online. While linking and/or talking about a post yes you're upping site statistics and the writer's profile (by the way it would be really nice if you'd do that for us, thanks) but you're also publicising disapproval and disagreement, rather than burying it or letting it slide. | Jones's age has nothing to do with her writing ability or validity of opinion |
Recently Daily Mail writer Liz Jones, who has a knack for picking subjects and having opinions that cause people's blood to boil. In May this year Jones wrote about Kate Moss: "Thirteen years ago, when Kate was 26, I sat bathed in sunlight in a glass edifice in Paris watching her on the catwalk in a Louis Vuitton bikini...She seemed short and had cellulite."
Of course Jones had a reason, a sincere and heartfelt one, for talking about Moss's cellulite: "She had cellulite in her 20s, when airbrushing was in its infancy. Heaven knows what it must be like now, two decades of hard living later - not that we'll ever see it, of course." She was concerned that the impression given by Kate, was that you could live a rock and roll lifestyle and not age. "What Kate's image is telling young girls is that a lifetime of champagne, rock n roll, 24 hour partying, cocaine - and the odd junkie boyfriend - can leave you not only untouched, but more beautiful than ever before."
How very worthy.
Unfortunately this didn't warrant much of a response. For all her partying ways, Kate Moss rarely speaks in public or on social networking sites. You know who does though?
Rihanna. Liz Jones criticised the singer for returning to her abusive boyfriend, getting tattoos and photographing herself living the high life. Rihanna responded, calling Liz Jones menopausal and criticised her journalism skills.
Of course this was unfortunately as low a blow as Liz Jones had made. Had Rihanna simply called out the fact Jones was basically writing nothing but a gossip column under the guise of concern her tweets calling Jones out could have been applauded. As it happened people joined in, taking Jones's history into account rather than noting the fact that her age has nothing to do with her writing ability or validity of opinion - even if it is usually nasty.
Yesterday Liz Jones wrote an article in response to the mini saga, headlined "I am not a troll (but you're right Rihanna, I am a mess)". The article argued that the response had been unbalanced and ended with "Trust me, no young woman is out there, thinking, 'Ooh, I want Liz Jones's career!' Why would you want it? Ghastly photographs under lurid headings, constantly being attacked for being ancient by other women (the Guardian loves printing my age as often as it can). I seriously don't think I can do this any more."
Is it because of her opinions or because she's a woman of a certain age that we are happy to silence Liz Jones? What behaviour are we allowing to slide here?
Squeamish Kate
Of course Jones had a reason, a sincere and heartfelt one, for talking about Moss's cellulite: "She had cellulite in her 20s, when airbrushing was in its infancy. Heaven knows what it must be like now, two decades of hard living later - not that we'll ever see it, of course." She was concerned that the impression given by Kate, was that you could live a rock and roll lifestyle and not age. "What Kate's image is telling young girls is that a lifetime of champagne, rock n roll, 24 hour partying, cocaine - and the odd junkie boyfriend - can leave you not only untouched, but more beautiful than ever before."
How very worthy.
Unfortunately this didn't warrant much of a response. For all her partying ways, Kate Moss rarely speaks in public or on social networking sites. You know who does though?
Rihanna. Liz Jones criticised the singer for returning to her abusive boyfriend, getting tattoos and photographing herself living the high life. Rihanna responded, calling Liz Jones menopausal and criticised her journalism skills.
Of course this was unfortunately as low a blow as Liz Jones had made. Had Rihanna simply called out the fact Jones was basically writing nothing but a gossip column under the guise of concern her tweets calling Jones out could have been applauded. As it happened people joined in, taking Jones's history into account rather than noting the fact that her age has nothing to do with her writing ability or validity of opinion - even if it is usually nasty.
Yesterday Liz Jones wrote an article in response to the mini saga, headlined "I am not a troll (but you're right Rihanna, I am a mess)". The article argued that the response had been unbalanced and ended with "Trust me, no young woman is out there, thinking, 'Ooh, I want Liz Jones's career!' Why would you want it? Ghastly photographs under lurid headings, constantly being attacked for being ancient by other women (the Guardian loves printing my age as often as it can). I seriously don't think I can do this any more."
Is it because of her opinions or because she's a woman of a certain age that we are happy to silence Liz Jones? What behaviour are we allowing to slide here?
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed
