In which Tim is a masculinist, phallocentric, patriarchal shitAugust 29, 2010 Tim WorstallFeminism12 CommentsWhy is it (page 2) that those who could usefully wear makeup don\’t? And what is it with cheap shitty silver jewelry? previousRussian heatwave: not climate change, NOAA says sonextLord Glenconner 12 thoughts on “In which Tim is a masculinist, phallocentric, patriarchal shit” Bill Sticker August 29, 2010 at 9:24 pm Masculinist, phallocentric, patriarchal; and this is bad because……? (Runs like hell before radical feminists arrive in force) Rumbold August 29, 2010 at 10:03 pm Why is it (page 2) that those who could usefully wear makeup don’t? An interesting question: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/6/17/1245237162184/tim.jpg Dennis August 29, 2010 at 10:40 pm And this is my reaction to this post. DocBud August 29, 2010 at 11:05 pm The use of the word “some” under “We will” is a hoot, e.g. “make some council-funded partnerships less secretive”. CJ August 29, 2010 at 11:22 pm “And what is it with cheap shitty silver jewelry?” You don’t know the Iron Law of Silver and Gold Jewelry? Isn’t this taught in Britain? Gadzooks. I’ll try and explain, athough having spent my life in western North America there may be a language barrier. Basically it goes like this … if you see a woman with silver jewelry, especially the kind of silver-and-abalone hippie stuff sold at roadside stands in the California desert-Las Vegas-Grand Canyon area, that indicates a skanky narcissistic bimbo that you want to avoid. On the other hand, if a woman is wearing tasteful gold jewelry and makeup and maybe some nice heeled shoes, that is a well-adjusted babe that you want to get next to. dearieme August 30, 2010 at 12:09 am I beg to differ. She looks perfectly pleasant to me. Moreover, silver – and pearls – are often the decorations that look best on British complexions. Gold looks better on Indians. Fred Z August 30, 2010 at 5:38 am Nah, Tim has it right. The woman in the link is a ‘hippie chick’. Every male pattern recognizing engine knows right away what she is, exactly what kind of trouble she will cause and what fun she will generate. At least she hasn’t reached the raddled, grey haired, loud mouthed, dirty, sour tempered witch woman stage of the type. ambrose murphy August 30, 2010 at 6:57 am I’m with dearieme – pleasant and cheerful looking young woman. I do agree the makeuplessness and jewelry are a statement, but why would that statement surprise anyone in that context? Anyway, it’s much more attractive than its opposite, the Texan hairspray, foundation and bling her Teaparty oppo in the US would wear. Andrew Ducker August 30, 2010 at 8:20 am “usefully”? She’s not there to look pretty for you. She’s there to look how _she_ wants, and tell you what she stands for. Will August 30, 2010 at 8:49 am Lack of makeup is refreshing and honest. Personally, I much prefer a lady who goes without, for a couple of reasons 1) you know exactly what you’re getting, and 2) they do tend to be relatively more attractive. The flip-question: would you trust a man who wore make-up?! Tim Newman August 30, 2010 at 9:40 am Ah, I see the problem. Like me, Tim has spent time in Russia, and therefore his view of what makes for a good looking woman has been permanently altered. john miller August 31, 2010 at 3:31 pm Russia? Like in the old 50s films where the leading man undoes the bow on Miss Smith’s hair and takes her glasses off, then says, “My God, Miss Smith, you’re beautiful”? Whereas in Russia they say, “Put the discus down, love” Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *Comment Name * Email * Website Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.