Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

xp That response was as helpful as the racism accusation (it could be inferred from your post that anti-Semitism was at play in my appraisal of HF's looks, which makes me spit nails at 200mph). There is only one person who I'm in danger of being unkind to right now, and that's you.

Tracer - I'm normally not in the fray of who looks like what, but to be slated for essentially saying someone's 'average' is a bit silly.

MDC - my colleague has just started doing the shows and already the Streetpeepers of this world are like FOLLOW THAT FRO.

this thread is fucking horrible.

huh i am more on-board with the 'i guess a certain type of guy finds this unthreatening' inter-ilx sniping than with the need to assert that a female journalist is Not Cute.

Is Ms Freeman particularly known for looksist sniping of her own? my abiding memory of her fashion column is the one where she talks about Christine Hamilton and dressing to please yourself.

nah i wasn't implying antisemitism, i don't think thin, stringy hair is in the list of antisemitic stereotypes/slurs!

I dunno, right in the first graf there she says "women think spaghetti straps are somehow sexy because they show more shoulder flesh, when in fact they just look rubbish and droopy (and that refers to both the dress and the breasts beneath it) and, frankly, cheap and nasty."

Kind of leaves the door open.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Puppy_Koons_Bilbao_frontal.jpg/450px-Puppy_Koons_Bilbao_frontal.jpg

agreed jim

a woman saying that spaghetti straps on heavy dresses look cheap and nasty leaves the door open to calling her stringy-haired and average-looking?

does not follow.

Average is good enough for me tbh

saying 'this is a style women think is going to make them look sexy but in fact it makes their breasts look awful why because of something inherent in the dress itself' is really not looks-ist.

I'd say calling a whole phalanx of unnamed women "cheap and nasty" in a national newspaper is somewhat worse than suzy saying her hair's stringy here. YMMV

um. it's the spaghetti straps that look cheap and nasty?

the spaghetti straps are what show more shoulder flesh, not the women.

i did not realise until now that one could read that any other way.

i am having serious difficulty trying to work out how you have managed to.

If handing out fashion advice to others in a national newspaper was my job (and it's not even something I do at my own style mag), best believe the hair situ in the byline photo would be under control.

im sure she's never printed a catty opinion on another woman's appearance in her life

im sure she's never printed a catty opinion on another woman's appearance in her life

i'm sure she has! but i don't think that makes it 'fair play' to be dismissive about her appearance - and i also think it's pretty clear that her fashion column tries quite hard not to be catty about other women's appearances.

Her fashion column is, by the way, unthreatening, which is no doubt why I, as someone who knows jack shit about fashion, like it.

think we can safely absolve h freeman of being winsome and unthreatening on this evidence anyway

Is ILX discussion of female writers worse that it used to be?

nah it's always been dreadful

xpost She has, even in the column, but it's usually directed at what I'd call a soft target eg. Sarah Palin. For the record, I'm more judgmental about writing style than personal style.

Nakh, I don't think you're a terrific reader of people this morning, maybe it's time for your nap.

Suzy you can't really say to someone "I think you're wrong to say this woman is cute and by the way I am judging you in a non-specific way for thinking so" and then dismiss people for getting arsey with you.

B-b-but I just did, because it's not the same as calling someone ugly. TRAVIS, YOU'RE A YEAR TOO LATE.

yeah i think it's a bit tendentious to say someone's byline photo confers 'winsome and unthreatening' when their columns are so caustic and unkind

I didn't say you called them ugly. However, "she's all thin, stringy hair, with kind of average looks" is definitely implying the less attractive side of "average" from what I can see.

It's exactly the sort of glass-half-empty trick you'd attack a Daily Mail writer for!

Female byline photos are ALWAYS about the 'chin-down, eyes up' winsomeness regardless of the writer's output, so I certainly shouldn't single her out, but it's always struck me as funny because it's something a contributor has more control over than most other stuff at work.

so why did you single her out? that's just asking for tendentious speculation about why you would be so embittered w/ hadley freeman

Because she was the one YOU GUYS started talking about; I merely responded with an opinion that was actually pretty mild and unthreatening.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v165/noodle_vague/angry-phone-call.jpg

you described her thin, stringy hair as notionally winsome/unthreatening, rather than attributing those qualities to the generic 'simpering byline photo' pose

read yr (own) posts

i think suzy conflated two decent opportunities for snark and got hoisted on her own petard

- the chance to decry ppl approving of female journalist's looks w/out reference to their actual work/thought
- the chance to throw h freeman's own caustic looks-based sneering right back at her

Of course I read my own posts. However, I also read yours:

she used to have the world's cutest byline photograph

Don't try to turn this into resentment, racism, or a lack of comprehension just because I happen to disagree.

going back to freeman, her fashion columns are mostly "i hate hipster trend x". or "this new cool thing guardian readers may like, it's a ruddy nonsense!".

so comment is free lifestyle writing then, basically.

for the third time suzy, i am sufficiently convinced of yr nonracist bona fides that i could make a throwaway joke abt yr inexplicable h8 of hadley freeman and her terrible junkie hair

nb - not saying she's an actual junkie ;)

enjoying the r-bombs in this thread, was worried it was going to be social network spoilers for a bit

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/lloyd-marcus-tea-party-blog/2010/oct/08/lloyd-marcus-tea-party

is this going to turn out to be a clever spoof, like that faux-david aaronovitch character they used to have?

Guardian comment-is-free seems to be full of right wingers telling each other how left wing all the cif people are while the strawmen have left the building.

Good grief you can't say things like that on CIF!!!
It's all about "entitlements" and big, all encompassing government on here.

Your story will be unacceptable to the Guardian crowd.

Oh dear, you're not going to be popular on here.

*awaiting the deluge of white liberals to tell you how you should really feel*

oh dear, you conjured up those dirty words: "Self Reliance", "Aspiration", "Initiative", "Personal Responsibility"...

you should know those are bad things here on CiF where, for many people, "social justice" is about keeping us all down at the lowest common denominator, helpless and dependent on nanny government who will always provide us a convenient scape-goat to blame when people don't provide us the things that we want....and its always their responsibility to provide those things right?

Ha, OTM.

Amused to see a ranting right-winger on there called BrownOutNow. Keep up, pal, there was an election.

add an s and it probably makes sense :(

yeah it really is like that...it's weird. seems the only people that can be bothered to comment are the negativos

it's pretty much the same on the daily mail comments. comments are great.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/oct/19/indie-professor-guest-pass

That column is total garbage.

A panel debate on web moderation

is rusbridger's daughter still on the job?

all reference to her seems to have disappeared from the guardian's website. wonder if she has a new new name.