Snarking ain’t over yet, it’s just more political

The Daily Telegraph‘s Sydney Confidential has reached a new low when it comes to pathetic snarking (a snide remark). Three sentences, 71 words, because the good old anonymous source said Sandra Sully “spent too much time complaining about her shoes”. Not only what the fuck, but who gives a fuck?

Women still can’t win when it comes to being judged on their appearance. If they wear makeup they’re dismissed as being lightweights; if they don’t, they’re criticised for not caring about their appearance. Case in point: today’s story in the Sydney Morning Herald about Kristina Keneally:

Keneally, who is often observed applying and reapplying lip gloss during question time, has immaculately manicured red acrylic nails and a stylish bobbed haircut. She is slim and striking, popular with men, but less so with female colleagues who are never short of catty remarks.

”She’s just so up herself without any good reason,” one senior female MP said. But other colleagues are more forgiving.

”She’s green, she’s untested but at least she isn’t Nathan,” one senior MP said.

When’s the last time you read a news story where the male politician’s appearance was described? Has anyone commented on Della Bosca’s skin? I bet there are male MPs picking their noses during question time but we’ll never read about it. And is “popular with men” a euphemism for slut?

2 responses to “Snarking ain’t over yet, it’s just more political

  1. OMG, I was trying to send this link to the Keneally story to you today but my SMH site kept crashing. I totally agree and Cheryl Kernot and all the other female politicians went through the same thing. It bores me senseless. Maybe Rees has manicures – who knows, who cares – certainly not me and not the journos who don’t report on it. The whole ‘said a female politician’ thing is just meant to underpin that women are bitchy and jealous creatures by nature so best we leave this politics business to the men!

    • And I’m sick of the unnamed source in politics. Obviously they have an agenda, so why use them? If they feel strongly enough about something/someone to comment to a journalist, then they can put their fucking name to it.

Go on, you know you have something to say...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s