You can has entitlement issues

I don’t want to get into Paul Henry’s predictably obnoxious comments about Stephanie Mills of Greenpeace and her physical appearance.  Gina has a [guest] post at The Hand Mirror about it, as does Tane at The Standard.

What I do want to point out, though, is how utterly oblivious some of the comments on that Standard post are (The Hand Mirror draws fewer Fungi from Yuggoth, but they’re there too).

There’s tsmithfield:

If she knew she was going on TV, then why didn’t she shave first?

[Same commenter further down] Facial hair can be sorted out in about two seconds.

There’s justthefacts:

MIlls DOES have a moustache, it DOES look ridiculous, and of course all Henry did was read out emails.

And there’s bingo-triggering concern troll Madeleine:

I felt for the woman as having a problem like that is embarassing and having it all over TV is not nice but its like any personal problem that is visible, if you are about to go on TV you pop that pimple, you wipe that snot, you clean your face, you do your hair, you put on makeup and tidy clothes, you wax/shave your mo.

And I have just one very simple question:

Why the FUCK does Stephanie Mills owe you wankers a hair-free upper lip?

Oh, that’s right. She’s an independent, autonomous human being who can set her own priorities and make her own decisions and look however the fuck she wants to look.  And especially when your fucking ilk are complaining over at THM that no one “has the right NOT to be offended”? It’s supreme fucking hypocrisy to simultaneously whine that you’ve been exposed to someone who clearly hasn’t had your specific aesthetic pleasure foremost in her mind.

I’m sorry to break it to you, guys, but societal beauty standards? Not actually laws. And while I’m sure you’re fucking thrilled that across the country hundreds of thousands of women are stressing the fuck out over invisible blemishes they’ve been assured are there by cosmetics ads, you know what? Some women don’t have the time, or the money, or the inclination (or they’re tweezing and curling and grooming according to their own damn aesthetics). And those women do not fucking owe you an existence without seeing a non-airbrushed human form.

Stephanie Mills can do whatever the fuck she likes with her appearance. At the end of the day, she’ll still be a fucktonne more dignified than you.



  1. Pdogge

    Oh good for you. What a frightful world we live in that so many are brainwashed into concerns like this. Aaaaand what an empty head Henry proves to be.
    Real journalists don’t get into this crap.

  2. jcuknz

    An interesting article to put it crudely that America gives its money to the banks while Europe gives its money to the workers. The crisis in the US of A is that people are not spending and keeping the ecconomy going and so recovering, whereas the Europeans with their social security arrangements are keeping people in work, perhaps on short time, and therefore spending. It will be interesting to see which works out best …. socialism or the free market.

  3. johubris

    Fucktonne is my new favourite word, thanking you kindly!

    (It pretty much goes without saying that I share your sentiments. I’m pretty sure that people who have facial hair are aware of said facial hair – although I would like to believe that maybe they don’t because that sort of ‘norm’ doesn’t register with them and all power to that – and have made decisions with regards to it earlier in their lives)

  4. jcuknz

    If you are going to deviate from the social norm then you need to be strong enough to bear the crits …. I assume that Stephane is strong enough to do this and simply ignores the flack. But it does show the sub-mental ability of some folk who attack the person instead of the concepts advocated …. which seems to be the content of most of this thread …. the kettle calling the pot black I think.

    • QoT

      Really, jcuknz? Criticising people’s assumptions that Stephanie Mills is under some obligation to fit their beauty standards is criticising them personally, or to a level of attacking their appearances instead of their ideas? Interesting.

      I certainly hope Stephanie Mills is ignoring this bullshit and continuing to do good work despite it. But whether she is or not, Paul Henry’s comments, and the comments quoted from The Standard, are still part and parcel of societal assumptions about how women should look if they want to be taken seriously (not that they are when they do modify their appearance, because then they’re the shallow ones who care about looks, right?).

      If you’d care to point out how my comment in any way “attacks the person instead of the concepts advocated”, feel free.

  5. Lex

    Oh fuck yes. Whenever I’m incensed about something, I can always rely on you to tear the fucking shit out of it in the most articulate way.

    I also plan on adopting fucktonne into my vernacular.

    Nice one QoT – love your work.

  6. jcuknz

    I mentioned this and other threads to a group that had missed it … to busy to waste time with blogs I guess … anyway they thought it hilarious … that is, not the act but that so many are getting their knickers in a twist over it … I think I agree. The modern expression I believe is “Get a life”

  7. QoT

    jcuknz … the fact that you can’t apparently criticize those criticizing Henry without resorting to gendered insults speaks volumes.

    As I have said to commenters before, I can post about whatever the hell I like on my blog. I can get annoyed about whatever I choose.

    Given that many other bloggers (despite your assertion that blogging is a “waste of time”, just cover all the bases for insulting commenters here while you’re at it) think this is a serious issue I’ll take your call to peer pressure as just a classic example of tactics traditionally used to try and shut up people you don’t like.

  8. jcuknz

    In coloqual terms men wear knickers too 🙂 I don’t dislike you, just think this thread is rather silly. Have a good day, and many of them 🙂