11 December, 2007 | Leave a Comment
Dear Editor,
Since you are the editor, I assume you approved the absolutely sickening, misogynist article up on the Times website today by Tad Safran? I’m quite astonished that your so-called newspaper would publish an article whose only point is to state that British women are ugly slobs. I am not going to critique the contents of this article because as an intelligent person, it is simply not worth my time. This is the kind of article that appeals to people who read novels by Jordan and probably can’t locate their own country on a map (and given the quality of your articles as of late, I’m guessing these kinds of people are a significant part of your readership). It’s difficult to imagine that even a magazine like Maxim would have sunk as low as you have.
What justification is there for publishing such an article? Would your newspaper publish an article like this that attacked a certain racial, ethnic or religious group? Of course not. Publishing such vile things about women is no different. I bet you think you’re being edgy and pushing the envelope by giving a moron like Tad Safran a platform to broadcast his ignorant views. Well, you’re not edgy. You’re pathetic. And sad. Right in the lead paragraph your author mentions Bridget Jones’s Diary. Are you kidding me? Do you really think this is an up-to-date cultural signifier? This article shows how completely irrelevant your newspaper is.
Each week I read articles in the Times that are very hostile to women, that try to scare women into thinking they’re not attractive enough, that they’re aging in a bad way, that their biological clocks are ticking. This deeply misogynist commentary is an industry at the Times. Even if the author is a woman (such as India Knight), it doesn’t excuse it. I have sometimes left comments on these articles, since after all you want readers to “Have Your Say,” yet not one of my comments has ever made it past your censors. My comments did not contain bad language or personal insults. Rather, they challenged the assertions made by your “writers.” Why is this so threatening? So much for a free exchange of ideas.
For Mr. Safran’s next article, I suggest he critique the appearance and penis size of male newspaper editors and writers in Britain. But it’s Christmas now — you may want to save such frights for Halloween.
Yours truly,
Anglofille
Sent to: online.editor@timesonline.co.uk
Anglofille said @ 12:38 pm | feminism |
- Comments RSS | TrackBack URI
-
daniela Says:
December 11th, 2007 at 1:21 pmoh my. i’ve told you. it is getting worse. well, apart from the literary supplement, i really wouldn’t bother too much with the times. do you think their readers do jordan books? nope, i think they are those types who haven’t got over the empire and think the queen is a great woman. honestly, i live here for a certain amount of reasons but i do not infest my eyes and ears with the media here anymore (maybe with the media in general, everywhere).
on the other hand it is essential to keep an eye. mind you that most women who read this will not feel insulted but anxious and wonder what they have been doing that it is so wrong.
but that is the idea, isn’t it? it is to make women feel bad and consume. and to draw men’s attention via perfect-woman images and make them buy cars and magazines. that is the whole idea. but women take it harder, of course. they feel guilty, the nonsense pressure is harder on them.
honestly? guess he is going to get bombarded by comments. and i must admit, i LOVED the end of your letter. perfect. -
Nice one. I’ve just written a letter of a similar tone to the editor of the Daily Mail. I suspect neither of us will recieve a satisfactory answer…!
-
Lovely letter. Pity it won’t make it to print seeing as it is rather too sane for The Times.
I found your blog after trying to find more info on Safran, as I too found his article just ever so slightly . . . stupid. I thought you may enjoy this link to RottenTomatoes.com (a movie review site), where Safran’s film (he wrote the screenplay) is apparently just as moronic and immature as his non-fiction writing. Oh, and it didn’t get a single positive review:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10007156-long_weekend/?show=all
The sad thing, I suppose, is that the lad gets work. I guess it’s because he likes to stir up trouble. Pity it isn’t remotely subversive or intelligently observed.
Again, lovely letter!
-
I hate to agree with the guy (and I didn’t read the whole thing ’cause I didn’t like the tone) but I think he has a point. And I looove it.
Too much freaky grooming in America. Too much pressure to pluck.
And why wait for Halloween - a discussion of penis size of writers in Britain sound perfect for Christmas.
-
Daniela: I think you’re right to just tune out the media. The Guardian seems to make me the least angry, so perhaps I should just stick with that. I didn’t realize the Times was such a rag, but I’m not going to read it anymore. It just insults my intelligence. Of course you’re right that the purpose of these articles in the Times is just to prey on women’s insecurities. For all of the women who left comments telling this guy off, many others are now feeling bad about themselves.
Clair: I will let you know if I receive a response!
Adrienne: I’m glad you liked the letter! Thanks for the link too. What a shock that he has not one shred of talent as a screenwriter. I hope this article haunts him for the rest of his days. What British woman is going to date him now?
Vol: I agree that the emphasis on grooming and plucking is horrible, but this guy was endorsing it as a great thing, not criticizing it. And according to him, most American women spend over $1000 a month on beauty treatments! He’s insane.
-
As I just commented on Clair’s blog, I almost didn’t make it past the Bridget Jones reference (I’m so glad you mentioned the bizarre ye olde cultural reference). I do hope you actually sent that to the editor, and look forward to seeing what the reply is (if you get one of course).
BMx
-
I did send it! I’d be surprised to get a reply, but I’ll post it here if I do.
As for Bridget Jones, give me a break! And he lead with it! Talk about the dustbin of pop culture history. Pathetic.
-
korova Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 1:44 pmYes, The Guardian is the way to go. Talking of offensive stuff in papers, did you see this report in The Guardian on Monday?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2224908,00.html
Quite the little woman hater.
-
Yes, this guy’s a real psycho. It’s chilling.
-
Have you spotted that Titface Tad has got a ‘right to reply’ piece in the Times, where he says he was too soft on British women?
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/beauty/article3056296.ece
Why doesn’t he just go back to the States if he hates British women so much? What a whiner!
-
Rebecca Says:
December 17th, 2007 at 6:15 pmMy theory is that he is on crack. I don’t know how else to explain why someone would possibly think it was his duty to inform a population that HE thinks they’re too frumpy/fat/whatever. I’m not entirely sure why he thinks his opinion is worth more than a grain of salt, but apparently the backlash he received pumped his ego up quite a bit. Unfortunate. What a moron. He’s right, too. No woman who has read that article in her right mind will ever sleep with him. So perhaps he’s done us all a favor by ensuring that he never spawns more backward-thinking louts like him.
-
Ugh. I’m glad he put his picture on the article this time, so we can all see how absolutely stunning he is. (Retch.)
You know, I’m not surprised that this guy exists and that he expresses such repugnant views. To me, the real issue here is why the Times is publishing him and giving him tons of publicity. What he is saying is deeply sexist, offensive to fat people and a deliberate provocation meant to make women feel bad about themselves. Not only that, but Americans living in Britain have their image tarnished by this freak who does not speak for any Americans except himself. Safran’s articles serve no purpose whatsoever. The Times has now created a situation wherein their readers and their own reporters are debating whether American or British women are more attractive. I feel as if we have left reality and are now living on a different planet. WTF is going on? It’s sickening. And the Times’ desire to promote this Neanderthal and give his vile and ignorant ideas legitimacy just shows how completely misogynist, low-brow and irrelevant they are. Why don’t their female staffers walk out and go on strike?
-
Gregory Says:
December 18th, 2007 at 11:43 pmQ. To me, the real issue here is why the Times is publishing him and giving him tons of publicity. What he is saying is deeply sexist, offensive to fat people and a deliberate provocation meant to make women feel bad about themselves.
A. Rupert Murdoch
But I could never see the point of tuna and sweet corn...
