Olenska

A WOMAN YES, BUT STILL FUNNY. (MAITLIN CORAN)

[olenskae]

Spotted on Facebook: a sexist and degrading form of cyber-bullying in disguise

If you’ve spent any time on Facebook recently, you’ve probably seen ten shared photos about how much somebody loves their mum, nine ill-spelt statuses about being tired, eight likes about how funny a video of a cat meowing is and seven statuses from a Spotted page. Originally limited to universities, these pages have spread like wildfire across Facebook, and have now started to encompass whole towns and cities as the trend for anonymous posting takes over. The posts range from the well-meaning "just found a lost cat on the street!" to the obscenely sexually threatening “To the slag in Poundland who id'd me for rizlas, Next time my cock will be so far down your throat you'll be shitting jizz for a week.” Posts are overwhelmingly focused on the physical attractiveness of women, usually worded in a less than eloquent, if not just downright sexist way.

Spotted pages were initially a novel way to confront loudmouths in university libraries, or the social media equivalent of lonely hearts columns, as lonelyguy01 posted about the beautiful girl he’d seen in the coffee shop and vice versa. However, this isn’t print where posts are carefully chosen and moderated. Facebook offers uncharted anonymous territory where a post can have twenty comments in less than five minutes, accusing people of being the subject of the post, or indeed the author. This is social media where a tirade of abuse can be posted anonymously - aimed very specifically at individuals who can identify themselves - yet not know who has posted the threatening, sexist or degrading comment. It’s cyber-bullying in disguise; dissenters are scolded for lacking a sense of humour, for not deferring to the apparently irrefutable concept of "banter", or for ignoring the good that the site has done - while it may have helped find a cat, it’s also passed on the unwelcoming message to the younger generation that Big Brother is ever-present and he really really cares about attractive you are.

People are literally no longer able to leave their front door without facing the possibility of being spotted and mentioned in a wider public forum - any statistic is up for discussion - too fat? People can abuse you about that anonymously! ID’d someone as part of your job at Sainsbury’s? Yep, your personal attractiveness is up for debate because you refused to allow a sixteen year-old to buy cigarettes.

There are no legal repercussions for naming and shaming others on Facebook, and for the more salubrious comments, it is likely that proceedings at the High Court would be the only successful way to get Facebook to release computer IP addresses. Even these measures lack gravity, however, as a claimant could simply argue that they had left their profile logged in. Meanwhile, sexist and threatening behaviour carries on being posted anonymously, as the moderation of comments and posts is left to the people who created to the page. Facebook has faced criticism in the past for ignoring threatening behaviour - when I reported the status about Poundland, I was told it had been reviewed and deemed acceptable. I can’t help but think that if it had been said outside of social media, the person could have faced serious legal consequences. I contacted Spotted: Stratford Upon Avon to see how they moderate the comments and they replied with “With regards to posts we try to look at them as if we were the recipient and how we would feel, we also have Facebook filters on to remove some comments on posts for us but we also check every status and remove any comments not suitable”, however they admitted that it is impossible to moderate 24/7. This is the crux of the problem - a site which isn’t constantly moderated is the breeding-ground for bullies to play their anonymous hand, protected from any repercussions, whilst a community is alerted to the indignity of somebody choosing to go outside without wearing makeup.  Anonymous posting dissipates the realtime consequences that the subject of the post end up feeling; the prickling discomfort of being constantly scrutinised, and then judged because you’re just not good looking enough for them

Meanwhile on "Spotted: Uncensored"…. "To the girl in McDonalds, you’re fit as fuck. Can’t wait until your old enough to not wear a uniform!

I originally wrote this for the New Statesman - link is in the content source if you want to comment

[olenskae]

The Republican Guide to Female Anatomy

[olenskae]

Yekaterina Samutsevich closing statement at the Pussy Riot Trial

Yekaterina Samutsevich's closing statement in the criminal case against the feminist punk group Pussy Riot:

During the closing statement, the defendant is expected to repent or express regret for her deeds, or to enumerate attenuating circumstances. In my case, as in the case of my colleagues in the group, this is completely unnecessary. Instead, I want to express my views about the causes of what has happened with us.

The fact that Christ the Savior Cathedral had become a significant symbol in the political strategy of our powers that be was already clear to many thinking people when Vladimir Putin’s former [KGB] colleague Kirill Gundyaev took over as head of the Russian Orthodox Church. After this happened, Christ the Savior Cathedral began to be used openly as a flashy setting for the politics of the security services, which are the main source of power [in Russia].

Why did Putin feel the need to exploit the Orthodox religion and its aesthetics? After all, he could have employed his own, far more secular tools of power—for example, national corporations, or his menacing police system, or his own obedient judiciary system. It may be that the tough, failed policies of Putin’s government, the incident with the submarine Kursk, the bombings of civilians in broad daylight, and other unpleasant moments in his political career forced him to ponder the fact that it was high time to resign; otherwise, the citizens of Russia would help him do this. Apparently, it was then that he felt the need for more convincing, transcendental guarantees of his long tenure at the helm. It was here that the need arose to make use of the aesthetics of the Orthodox religion, historically associated with the heyday of Imperial Russia, where power came not from earthly manifestations such as democratic elections and civil society, but from God Himself.

How did he succeed in doing this? After all, we still have a secular state, and shouldn’t any intersection of the religious and political spheres be dealt with severely by our vigilant and critically minded society? Here, apparently, the authorities took advantage of a certain deficit of Orthodox aesthetics in Soviet times, when the Orthodox religion had the aura of a lost history, of something crushed and damaged by the Soviet totalitarian regime, and was thus an opposition culture. The authorities decided to appropriate this historical effect of loss and present their new political project to restore Russia’s lost spiritual values, a project which has little to do with a genuine concern for preservation of Russian Orthodoxy’s history and culture.

It was also fairly logical that the Russian Orthodox Church, which has long had a mystical connection with power, emerged as this project’s principal executor in the media. Moreover, it was also agreed that the Russian Orthodox Church, unlike the Soviet era, when the church opposed, above all, the crudeness of the authorities towards history itself, should also confront all baleful manifestations of contemporary mass culture, with its concept of diversity and tolerance.

Implementing this thoroughly interesting political project has required considerable quantities of professional lighting and video equipment, air time on national TV channels for hours-long live broadcasts, and numerous background shoots for morally and ethically edifying news stories, where in fact the Patriarch’s well-constructed speeches would be pronounced, helping the faithful make the right political choice during the election campaign, a difficult time for Putin. Moreover, all shooting has to take place continuously; the necessary images must sink into the memory and be constantly updated, to create the impression of something natural, constant and compulsory.

Our sudden musical appearance in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior with the song “Mother of God, Drive Putin Out” violated the integrity of this media image, generated and maintained by the authorities for so long, and revealed its falsity. In our performance we dared, without the Patriarch’s blessing, to combine the visual image of Orthodox culture and protest culture, suggesting to smart people that Orthodox culture belongs not only to the Russian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch and Putin, that it might also take the side of civic rebellion and protest in Russia.

Perhaps such an unpleasant large-scale effect from our media intrusion into the cathedral was a surprise to the authorities themselves. First they tried to present our performance as the prank of heartless militant atheists. But they made a huge blunder, since by this time we were already known as an anti-Putin feminist punk band that carried out their media raids on the country’s major political symbols.

In the end, considering all the irreversible political and symbolic losses caused by our innocent creativity, the authorities decided to protect the public from us and our nonconformist thinking. Thus ended our complicated punk adventure in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

I now have mixed feelings about this trial. On the one hand, we now expect a guilty verdict. Compared to the judicial machine, we are nobodies, and we have lost. On the other hand, we have won. Now the whole world sees that the criminal case against us has been fabricated. The system cannot conceal the repressive nature of this trial. Once again, Russia looks different in the eyes of the world from the way Putin tries to present it at daily international meetings. All the steps toward a state governed by the rule of law that he promised have obviously not been made. And his statement that the court in our case will be objective and make a fair decision is another deception of the entire country and the international community. That is all. Thank you.

EDIT: This was taken from Chtodelat News (https://chtodelat.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/yekaterina-samutsevich-closing-statement/), whom yesterday I forgot to put acknowledgment too, apologies! I just noticed it wasn't on Tumblr as well so wanted to make it able for reblogs and such. All credit goes to them

[olenskae]

Reddit and the Rapists: a disturbing commentary from the anoymous

A recent thread on Reddit asked rapists what their motivation was for carrying out sexual assaults and if they regretted it. Whilst what personal qualities or circumstances render somebody capable of rape is a serious and worthwhile issue to explore, the internet isn't a suitable place. Opportunities to hear rapists should be taken away from the public eye, by trained professionals, not by Reddit. We might as well start compiling 4chan into an encyclopaedia.

The internet is such an open forum that anonymously written rape stories can be written to be more shocking or unique than others, in the most depressing style of one-upmanship. Marketing rape into a sensational story just makes it more dangerous.

The stories become an encyclopaedia of how to rape women, what to look for. It overshadowed the sobering acknowledgement that rape is often committed by somebody close to the victim, as users talked about what they looked for in victims;  "I wanted the thrill of the chase, and that's what led me to forcing myself on girls. I would find attractive girls that were self-conscious about their looks. Girls who were pretty in their own unique way, but not the outgoing sort, mostly introverts, and girls that didn't party or do wild things. Hopefully a girl who was a bit damaged, had a shitty ex-boyfriend, or family issues, came from a small shut in town, that sort of thing."

"Picked her up at a bar, bought her drinks, took her home with me. We do some foreplay and then she tells me that she should really get going because she made a huge mistake. Well too fucking bad. I wasted the last 5 hours baiting this fish, and now it wants to escape. Nope."

For victims of rape, reading this thread would have been a triggering event, as ultimately, its not the rapists story to tell. To find that your rapist gets upvoted for roughly raping you at knife point highlights why this thread was dangerous. A recurrent point was "'woman use their sexuality to economically exploit men." IF YOU BUY ME A JACKET POTATO AND EXPECT ME TO SLEEP WITH YOU, I WILL NOT SLEEP WITH YOU BECAUSE OF THAT. NOT EVER.

This wasn't a useful analogous exercise providing an insight into rapists thoughts and activities, it rather became a forum of rape apologising, where people were lauded for carrying on, past the point of 'No'.

The thread raised an interesting point overall, that rape does need to be discussed and looked at differently, it does need to be a part of a wider discussion that goes beyond the idea that all rapists are strangers in dark spaces. Norwich Rape Crisis shelter predict that over 13,000 women are raped at work each year and that four out of five victims will know their rapist. In short, roughly 90% of victims are raped by somebody they know.

Rape does have to be discussed away from the current hysteria it often possesses when brought up in public; "Don't drink too much! Or walk down a dark alley! DON'T WEAR A LOW-CUT TOP YOU FLUTTERING HUSSY!" West Mercia Police recently apologised for their recent campaign posters, which highlighted a women's responsibility for not drinking too much, but said nothing about saying no.

However, when the rapists story becomes more interesting than the victims story due to its anonymous fictional content than we have a problem.

[olenskae]

This photo makes me smile every time I look at it. Me (holding the gin bottle obviously) and my friends after a gin picnic. WHICH IS A THING.

[olenskae]

The sheer wrongness of strip clubs

To paraphrase the excellent Caitlin Moran, it’s the year 2012, and strip clubs - for so long regarded as the holding pen for the last few sad sweaty fucks on earth - have become acceptable again. I don’t see strip clubs as glamorous and empowering for women, I find them offensive, unnecessary and sexist. I think more women need to stand up and say this; that actually, they are uncomfortable with them, rather than letting it slide for fear of being called a kill-joy. Strip clubs entrench detrimental ideas about women into society’s way of thinking - nobody would put up with it in any other setting, so why are we supposed to accept it purely because it's happening in a purpose built club? If my boyfriend was to go to one, my main objection isn’t that he’ll be looking at other women (although, to be honest, I think that if anyone is paying someone to dance for them in underwear then it basically counts as a sexual encounter, and thus infidelity, albeit on a lesser scale). I just don’t understand why men, perfectly decent, bloody funny, thoughtful young men, who would never dream of harassing a women on the street, or shouting racist behaviour at a football match, no matter what anybody else is doing, would think nothing of engaging in sexist behaviour because "that's what happens on stag nights" or on a lads night out.  Why is sexism and treating women as commodities okay whereas other forms of discrimination are utterly unacceptable? It royally pisses me off that this sort of sexism is seen as not that big a deal. Strip clubs defended as a sort of ‘female empowerment’, as if stripping down to your thong in front of some fat pervy geezer is empowering. I refuse to accept this as an argument, stripping for payment will never be the way I choose to get my kicks, nor should it have to be. The line of defence “it helps women funding their way through education” is so utterly redundant it makes me want to cry whilst raging, in order to save time by combining my stages of grief. IF WOMEN ARE HAVING TO STRIP IN ORDER TO GET AN EDUCATION, THEN WE ARE UTTERLY FUCKED. The entire culture makes me sad for men and women. I hate the macho, laddish stereotype and think it disempowers men just as much. The fact that strip clubs have somehow become an acceptable everyday thing is an example of how much the attitude still prevails that women are primarily there to be looked at. When can we, as a society, collectively get past the idea that women aren’t there to be looked at? In short, it’s a commodification I won’t support.

[olenskae]

Nick Minaj deconstructs sexism whilst applying her eyeliner

[olenskae]

Running into danger: the culture of street heckling

I don't particularly like running. By that, I mean that in the scale of 'great things that I like', it perhaps lies just above dropping a nail gun on my foot, but far far below eating Kettle Chips on the sofa. However, I like to eat pizza and this seems like the best way to ensure my body shape doesn't engorge to vast proportions, like Violet in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

The most off-putting part of running now is the heckling you get from men when all you’re trying to do is run as fast as you can to Eye of the Tiger goddamit. It feels as if heckling lone women out running is becoming an acceptable activity; casually walk to the pub, chat with your mates, get a drink in, repeatedly scream "OI SLUT!" at the top of your voice at the female running past, return to your conversation, get more drinks in.

The idea that this is acceptable feels completely alien to me, but apparently not to the strangers who have shouted at me about my tits, or my arse, or that I should lie down on their lap. I respond with a poker face, to not give anybody the pleasure of seeing me flustered but sometimes I want to stop and challenge them because I'm not sure they realise how utterly terrifying it is for me. It's not harmless banter, it's a group of men baying at a twenty-year old whose primary motivation for running is to stave off becoming Channel 4's next insensitive documentary topic.

RunnersWorld.co.uk has a list of ‘30 Things Every Woman Should Know About Running’. Six of the tips relate to how women can keep themselves safe whilst running; such as not to wear jewellery, or run at night, to carry a personal alarm and leave a route of where you’re running when you leave the house. The advice that we’re given is to protect ourselves, rather than for the culprits to be taught not to harass, but in practical terms it feels like that's all I can do -  the onus is always on us to protect ourselves by running earlier, or running with a partner, rather than for certain men to change their behaviour. It’s an entirely different sort of abuse that women receive too, it always seems to be much more personal; the comments are often aggressively sexual or about the women’s body (it’s too fat, it’s too thin, my tits are too small to be wearing a running bra), and I don’t think the comments men receive are often of that ilk.

It’s a dispiriting realisation that you have can do absolutely nothing about the heckling without potentially putting yourself in a dangerous situation. Very little can be done about others’ lack of self-control unless they physically assault you, and by then it’s too late. It’s 2012 and there is no better protection for women to protect them from heckling. I always want to stop and ask how they would react if they found someone had made the same comment to their daughter or mother. On the few occasions I have stopped and confronted them, I’ve been told it was a joke and nothing to be taken seriously.

The idea that I should be flattered by the braying of these cretins who have singled me out is ridiculous. I don’t run for self affirmation and I’m not looking for compliments from the fat pisshead who’s just commented on my tits. It’s certainly a minority of men that harass women, but other men need to step in and point out that it’s not acceptable, whether the comments are meant to be insulting or not - I feel that if I stand and confront somebody I’ll either be laughed at or punched.

In the meantime, I just like to run faster and harder, stamping their stupid faces into the mud.

[olenskae]

FLIRTING AND WHY IT NEEDS A SPECIAL HAT

Flirting is a myth to me, like bikini bodies or the theory that flicky eyeliner is achievable, and not a wistful dream, shrouded in regret and cataracts. In short, I think I have more of a chance for the Olympics then ever understanding any sort of flirty behaviour. I don’t think I’m especially remedial but if everyone wore a hat when flirting, it would make life a little easier. I realise this demand might initially come across as slightly certain-historical-figures-insisted-on-this-and-segregation-based-on-arbitrary-characteristics-and-behaviour-is-tiresome. You might also point out that Hitler didn’t actually make anyone wear a hat, but I think we can all summarily agree that he went a lot further and this whole flirting debacle doesn’t need to go there. IT JUST NEEDS A HAT. Or a hand gesture. Unlike dogs with their intuitive ear-satellites (I’m not a vet), I don’t understand when somebody’s flirting with me. I could sit there awkwardly chatting to somebody for twenty odd minutes on a night out, without realising he is APPARENTLY MAKING A MOVE. Braille would be clearer at this point of cluelessness. I’m a fairly (overly) chatty person, and I assume most conversations with strangers on a night out are just a way of avoiding dubstep, whilst being able to smoke heavily and still drink gin. Therefore, any conversation will be enthusiastically taken up by me, and any chance of romance is ruined, as the advance turns into an enthusiastic Q&A hosted by me, peppered with my thoughts on politics and feminism. Very quickly the advance is ruined as I relentlessly field questions about your chosen topic. It’s essentially a drunker version of Mastermind. One particular highlight of mine is when a boy invited me out to the smoking area, and I talked about my interest in goat farming for twenty minutes. I’m not entirely sure when I last saw a goat that wasn’t part of an internet meme, so I don’t know where that particular desire stemmed from. However, if a guy came up to me, sporting a SPECIAL FLIRTING HAT then I would immediately know. To be fair, on the extremely rare occasion that I have understood flirting, I am able to extrapolate suitable candidates (as I write this it is becoming inherently clear to me that I perhaps run my love life according to bad game shows) on the basis of a few interests: gin, feminism, doctor who, pizza, politics or books. An interest in one of those is suitable, and a crossover is EVEN BETTER (although I don’t know what feminist pizza looks like - patriarchal pepperoni?). However, a flirting hat would be a loud FLIRTING KLAXON and we could go from there. As it stands, I panic and accidentally talk about ghosts. Potentially with a crossover into goats. Donations for some sort of counselling are gladly received, gin is even better.

[olenskae]

HEY FOREVER 21. NO ONE'S LEGS ARE THAT SKINNY. They'd snap :-(

Poor snappable skinny girls.

[olenskae]

Durex UK's Facebook page

[olenskae]

When Durex stopped making sex sexy: the rise of violent advertisements

I'm aware that the advert is a 'spoof', as in it was previously a Burger King advert and presumably they had no intention of posting it in magazines and ensuring it conformed to ASA's standards of acceptability.

However, they posted it on their Facebook page with a 165k like's, and used the caption 'Poor Woman...(or maybe lucky one?), which was my main concern, especially for a company that should promote healthy sex, not create a link between sex and violence.

[olenskae]

Protest sign earlier this month against 40 Days for Life

[olenskae]

This is one reason why i love Obama

[olenskae]

When Durex stopped making sex sexy: the rise of violent advertisements

Durex UK posted this on their Facebook page on Wednesday, with the caption “Poor woman...(or maybe lucky one)?” Maybe I’ve had a complete sense of humour failure, rendering me with a complete inability to see a picture of an injured women with plasters on her face as anything but a woman who’s high on her luck that week. I was under the misapprehension that half of the fun of sex lies in the woman also having a good time. This advert doesn’t show a woman having a good time, it shows her injured, a victim of PR sexual depravity. The whole advert is just another step towards normalising sexual violence against women. Durex should have stopped their caption at ‘Poor woman.’ The World Health Organisation defines sexual violence as including “physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration of the vulva or anus with a penis, other body part or object.” This advert glorifies sexual violence and helps create an unhealthy stereotype of women as sexual objects. A simple google search for ‘sexual violence against women’ leads you to endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk which cites a poll by Amnesty in 2005 which revealed that a third of people believe women who flirt are partially responsible for being raped and a quarter of those asked said that they thought a women was partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was wearing sexy or revealing clothing. This fusion of sex and violence isn’t just taking place in Darfur, its also present in huge multinational companies like Durex who posted this on a Facebook page with 167,301 likes. The marketing of dangerous activities can have a reinforcing effect when presented in such a ‘light-humoured’ way; it’s part of an emerging culture where manhood is synonymous with power and control over women - that isn’t necessarily a new concept but the format its taking is. It’s hilarious banter lolz when True Lad post jokes about rape and New Look sell misogynist T-shirts demeaning women to permanently sexually available things that are always up for it, and hey! Even if they’re not, they might be secretly, just try it! Really it’s a farcical parody of masculinity, but apparently this isn’t clear to a company that acknowledges on its Facebook page that “sex plays a fundamental role in our physical and emotional wellbeing.” Durex is promoting an ideology of women that is only seen in the most gory porn - one where the man achieves his sexual gratification by leaving the women with injuries at the end of it. The injuries sustained here are covered by plasters, perhaps Durex realised that it wouldn’t be acceptable to show a woman with open wounds at the side of her mouth, perhaps it’s not ‘sexy.’ However, it felt it was acceptable to show the wounds covered up and hidden, akin to a woman wearing sunglasses to hide the black eye she’s received. The cut-off of the rest of the face removes any emotion, she has stopped being a person and become a sexual receptacle, for which she’s supposed to be grateful. His penis was SO HUGE that it caused injury, what a lucky lady! Banter lolz flooded the Facebook page, with many comments praising Durex for posting the image. It’s unclear where the line becomes crossed in releasing adverts, or indeed if there is a line at all, when looking at adverts such as this. Does the faceless woman have to be shown with bruising or teeth knocked out before the advertisers would consider it to be glorifying violence against women and unsuitable? “Poor woman...(or maybe lucky one)?” reiterates this point, this woman has been sexually assaulted and her mouth has torn open, but she should really be grateful for his large penis. The advert plagues me with greater concerns than the consideration of whether to have a shag in the near future. My biggest concern is that I live in a society where women aren’t being treated as human beings, rather they’re sexual playthings, becoming victims by their presence of XX chromosomes and tits. I’m unaware of the memo that went out endorsing sexual violence as an advertising tool but Durex hit the spot with this advert.

EDIT: Just posting Durex UK's posting of it, to clear up any confusion since the image has now been deleted:

It appears the advert is a spoof advert, taken originally from a Burger King advert and Durex reposted it with the addition of 'Durex XXL' on the image, just to clear up any confusion. However, I feel this doesn't take away from the main point of a company posting this to 167,301 people, with the above caption. My point of Durex glamorising violence and demeaning women is still a valid one, sadly.

[olenskae]

Tesco Retro

I wrote a small piece for the brilliant Vagenda magazine, but I'm just reposting it here because I'm vain. Originally taken from http://vagendamag.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/tesco-retro.html

My local Tesco’s separate their magazines into ‘Women’s interests’ and ‘Men’s interests’. Presumably just in case my ovaries don’t automatically direct me on a nuclear mission trackpath to choose cupcakes and TOWIE and I accidentally buy something I couldn’t possibly be interested in - like Private Eye or The Economist, or The Spectator. I don’t think (or I really really don’t like to think) that Tesco organises its magazines on the basis that women aren’t interested in politics, the economy or current events, and that it’s some sort of patriarchal-oppression drive by one of the biggest supermarkets in Britain. I don’t think that, and I don’t WANT to think that. But routinely, for several months, this particular Tesco has sorted its magazines by placing those magazines, and others, into ‘Men’s interests’. It’s the ignorance that I find most depressing, apparently no one has had a brainwave that a woman might be interested in wider affairs.

My tits do not prevent me from wanting to read about current affairs, in fact, the mere presence of them encourages my interest in politics - women are routinely underpaid, underrepresented and unfairly treated in businesses and wider society. A YouGov survey has just released figures showing that just over 40% of young women in London have experienced sexual harassment in public spaces over the last year. I have a vested interest in current affairs, and the fact that Tesco designates them as anything else than ‘General interests’ is utter bollocks. I try not to get too sweary in my writing but things like this, that can be easily ignored and overlooked, cause me to put on my biggest Doc Martens and start getting sweary with even the smallest and sweetest old lady.

The majority of women’s magazines make me feel like I’m not conforming to society’s unobtainable ideals of femininity. I don’t care about who shaves or doesn’t shave their armpits and I subscribe to the Caitlin Moran school of thinking - that I will only wear high heels that allow me to dance to Lady Gaga and run away from murderers. The most frustrating aspect is that a generation of children are walking through these shops, seeing that these magazines are for men, and this affecting their attitudes of acceptable reading material for men and women. My XX chromosomes only serve to make me brilliantly awesome, and in no way do they define my reading interests. Sort it out Tesco.

Related post: http://neitshade.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/the-importance-of-trivia/

[olenskae]

Emailing Apprentice candidates, part 2

I might have had a few glasses of wine by the time I emailed Nick....At the time I thought it was light humoured and a witty take on the Apprentice episodes, but I actually sound as if I smoked crack cocaine before deciding that I should spend my evening emailing Nick before I went and shat on a neighbours door in protest at them playing loud music past half nine on a Wednesday night. Maybe I was just grieving the lack of new Apprentice episodes in my life. Maybe.

Hi Nick,

We were big fans of you on the show, and were absolutely devastated when you and your hair didn't become Sugar's numero uno! Just a quick email to spread some blue sky thinking about how we could get you 'outside the box' and into our speaking hall! We would LOVE to have you speak as you talk about your time on the apprentice, and some tips on how to get into business. Also some app-development ideas maybe as we'd like to start our own, centered around a game involving pineapples! We'd also love it if you were able to show us how you get your hair so fine, so maybe bring some hairspray! LOL!! Love to hear from you, Rosie

I'm not entirely surprised he hasn't replied. Not surprised, just disappointed.