Emily Maitlis' legs

[annaj]

Huguenot, it's absolutely true that there aren't many male newsreaders in their twenties, but that's because most newsreaders are in their 30s before they get a slot on a mainstream news show - all the woman on this thread are in their 30s.

There are some exceptions, Krishnan Guru-Murthy graduated from Newsround to Newsnight at the age of 24 and Matthew Amroliwala first appeared on the BBC news in his late 20s.

For the most part newsreaders, both male and female, have put in the years behind the scenes or on radio before they get to TV news.

The difference is that, once they make it, the women will be expected to look good on sceen and off and may well get taken off screen altogether when they start to age, making it a pretty short career.

I also take your point about the way these TV personalities "choose" to portray themselves, but I think it's less straightforward and less of a choice than you imply. They are responding to the expectations of a Heat Magazine society and that, in my opinion, is what need to change.

But it's two days until one of the biggest exams of my career, so I really shouldn't be procrastinating on here discussing the ins and outs of sexism in the 21st century in the context of pretty newsreaders.

Just one more thing though, Ladymuck, in Mockney's defence there is a big difference between him saying someone is "wuvvvwevy" and the kind of filth that was circulating on the other thread, which was really unpleasant to read and I'm not afraid to say I reported, so no double standard. The only thing similar on this thread was BBWs unpleasant contribution early on which has, quite rightly, been edited.

It's the attitude on this thread that I have rasied a (fairly mild) objection to, not the smut.

[HAL9000]

annaj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just one more thing though, Ladymuck, in Mockney's

> defence there is a big difference between him

> saying someone is "wuvvvwevy"

Er...um...LadyMuck was most likely referring to Mockney's "crumpet," a euphemism, like "black pudding," but of a complementary gender.

[daizie]

What a corker :-S

[annaj]

LadyMuck was most likely referring to Mockney's "crumpet," a euphimism, like "black pudding,"

Yes, reading back, I agree that she probably was, but I stand by my comment that the tone and content of this thread is completely different and the previous thread crossed a line in terms of explicit and smutty content and the decision to remove it was justified.

[HonaloochieB]

I wish now I'd read more of the 'sex therapy' thread so I'd have the full skinny on it.

I read the first four or five posts, thought it looked a bit dull and tawdry and didn't bother after that.

But getting removed? I bet no one saw that coming.

[HAL9000]

I just thought I'd mention it in case your examiners use euphemisms in order to avoid offending students with vulgar medical terms - wouldn't want you to fail on that account. Good Luck. :)

[bigbadwolf]

"The only thing similar on this thread was BBWs unpleasant contribution early on which has, quite rightly, been edited."

Ho ho ho.

[bignumber5]

I just thought I'd mention it in case your examiners use euphemisms in order to avoid offending students with vulgar medical terms

Hardly a student, and hardly likely to be offended by medical terms ;-)

[bigbadwolf]

I know what I've said to Anna and BN5 may be construed as a bit cheeky but in all honesty I'm a huge fan of both of them as they often prove themselves as clear and concise poster's who more than equipped to deal with the crude ramblings of a pup such as myself.

Anna and BN5 are better people than myself.

They're married - I'm not.

They're homeowners - I'm not.

They relieve suffering - I apply it.

They probably drive an eco friendly vehicle - Not so much.

However...

They both have a moral and crusading quality. So when me and the lads are shooting the shit about the attributes of female news anchors and Anna and BN5 poke their heads round the door wielding the Suffragete rule book and Huguenot replies to their rant with a clever and concise;

"Hey there little lady. The gunslingers will be out of the saloon in a minute. Why don't you get back into that there station wagon of your's and and get the f_ck outta Dodge."

Who am I to complain eh.

[bigbadwolf]

I'm being 100% genuine when I say "good luck with your exam".

[annaj]

They're married - I'm not.

They're homeowners - I'm not.

That just shows that we're older, not better!

I know that I can come across as a bit dull and worthy on the forum and I probably am on this thread, but I'm really not (I don't think) in real life.

It might seem like I'm picking on a really small point here, but the thing is that all the small things put together make up big things and, if left unchallenged, remain accepted.

BBW, thank you for your good luck wishes, I don't doubt for a second that they were genuine.

[bigbadwolf]

Oh behave yourself Anna. We all know that both you and BN5 are paragons of 'grooviness'. It's just that you come across as a bit teacherish sometimes, that's all.

Take care and make sure you pack that apple to leave on the invigilators desk.xxx

[Mick Mac]

Who would have thought a simple one line OP would turn out such an interesting debate between such good friends. Oh and BBW, the clue's in the name - he's probably quite Big.

[Ladymuck]

annaj Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just one more thing though, Ladymuck, in Mockney's

> defence there is a big difference between him

> saying someone is "wuvvvwevy" and the kind of

> filth that was circulating on the other thread,

In your rush to come to Mockney's defence, it seems that not only have you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT, but you have also either failed to notice (or deliberately ignored?) the highlighted sentence pertinent to my posting. Just to clarify, my post referred directly to the sentence: "Good ole thinking mans crumpet" to which I merely observed "some forumites might be offended by such a comment...". To this observation I further commented:

normally I wouldn't mind, as I am sure you are only "having a bit of fun". However, bearing in mind your, relatively strong, objections to some of the postings on the "sex therapist thread", I find your post rather galling...a case of double standards here me thinks"

This was to convey the fact that I personally do not mind the contents of this thread (otherwise I would not have read it this far). My observation relates SOLELY to the fact that Mockney saw fit to lodge a pretty strong complaint about the contents of the "sex therapist thread" (which, as a forumite with a view, he was entitled to do and to which I have absolutely no objection per se) BUT that, a short while later he thought it appropriate to join in this thread and post as he has above. Neither his complaint nor his current posting I find objectionable per se when viewed IN ISOLATION. However, when the two postings are viewed TOGETHER and DOUBLE STANDARDS and HYPOCRISY appear sharply into focus, it is THIS that I find distasteful.

I am unclear as to your meaning when you say:

and the kind of

> filth that was circulating on the other thread

Yes, the majority of the postings contained innuendo and references to sex and nudity with a view to injecting humour and excitement into the thread - and judging by comments made to me about the thread, many forumites found the thread extremely funny. Somebody described it to me as "a bit like a Carry On Movie", and for the most part it probably was. I agree that there were a few postings which were explicit in terms of describing sexual acts within a lesbian relationship which might appear shocking to some, but I do not believe that they constituted "filth" (perhaps you could enlighten me as to which postings disgusted you so much?). Regarding the "explicit" posts, although I would not have posted them myself (I do not possess such courage), I thought the posters very brave. This courage led others to "open up" - which, in my humble opinion, is the healthy way forward. The thread was not an ethical discussion on moral standards or the decline of morality - in which case the appropriate place for it would have been the Drawing Room! Although it started off as an advert for the services of a sexual therapist it (following a swift move to the lounge by Admin) soon developed into a fun thread as alluded to above.

>

which was really unpleasant to read and I'm not

> afraid to say I reported, so no double standard.

I am not convinced of your allegation that [the thread] was "really unpleasant" for you to read as you appear to have read the WHOLE of the thread. Why did you not relieve yourself of such unpleasantness after the fifth or sixth post? The nature of the thread was fairly clear at a relatively early stage. Indeed, it is an unusual person who persists with a "really unpleasant" experience.

[Ladymuck]

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What a corker :-S

Daizie, you ALWAYS make me laugh!:))

[Ladymuck]

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> annaj Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Just one more thing though, Ladymuck, in

> Mockney's

> > defence there is a big difference between him

> > saying someone is "wuvvvwevy"

>HAL9000 Wrote:

> Er...um...LadyMuck was most likely referring to

> Mockney's "crumpet," a euphemism, like "black

> pudding," but of a complementary gender.

Spot on HAL9000...glad you were paying attention.;-)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

WEAKEST LINK presenter Anne Robinson complained yesterday: ?All television is sexist and ageist.?

?I?m quite pragmatic,? she added. ?If there was a lovely blonde with huge breasts and long legs who had my experience and wit, I?d be out of a job.?

The 64-year-old is returning to host consumer-rights show Watchdog 16 years after she first presented it and eight years after leaving to concentrate on teatime quiz The Weakest Link.

She told the Radio Times that other older female television stars who had been shown the door did not ?have my CV?.

But young women in TV had a better chance of getting on than men, she suggested. ?There are a lot of pretty young things with not much talent appearing on television here, and I don?t think that young guys who are not as attractive would get those gigs.

?Girls get a much better crack of the whip when they?re younger than men do. It?s just the way it goes.?

Her comments follow the claims earlier this year of newscaster Peter Sissons, 67, that a rise in pretty women coincided with a fall in journalistic training.

Singling out Natasha Kaplinsky, 36, Sissons said she had ?done very well out of her looks? after she landed a ?1million deal on Five News.

He added: ?It should be a requirement that you don?t get to read the news unless you?ve been through the fire of frontline reporting.?

This is "the other side" of the coin, mentioned earlier in this thread.

Some of these "pretty young things" can surely not be mentioned in the same breath as John Simpson,John Pilger or Kate Adie, for example.

Sure they DO possess a modicum of talent, it would be churlish to suggest otherwise but to what degree ? and its strange how "amazingly" they are all or mostly "easy on the eye" when realistically, only a small percentage of people are in real life.

p.s. Sorry about the late osting but I'm still buzzing after attending The Notting Hill Carnival:-$

[annaj]

Ladymuck, if you'd read my post properly you'd see that after HAL's post I acknowledged that I'd misuderstood which part of Mockney's post you were referring to, but that it didn't change my opinion or my post.

Now, just to be clear about my opinion of the sex therapy thread, I had no objection at all to LE's original post or the general concept of a thread about sex. As I said on the thread itself, I believe LE was genuine in her desire to help people enjoy a healthy and happy sex life and I thought it had potential to be really interesting. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it was then completely hijacked by a small group of posters exchanging what you all obviously thought were very witty bits of innuendo, but to the outside reader were just at first faintly distasteful and later plain rude and, yes, unpleasant to read. I can't remember specific examples of things that went too far (and no, it wasn't the references to lesbian sex, I'm not a prude or easily shocked) because I didn't commit the entire thread to memory, but the whole tone of the exchange felt wrong to me.

I posted on the thread that I thought it had gone too far and strayed away from LE's original and valid point and I reported the thread to the moderators. Obviously, I wasn't the only one, because a whole thread wouldn't be removed for one complaint. I appreciate that you feel wronged and defensive and I'm not judging you as a person, I'm just saying I think that thread went to far and whilst, obviously, some people disagree and support you, some people also clearly agreed since the thread was removed.

This thread, again in my opinion, has a different tone and less detail and I don't think there's any double standard.

[RosieH]

Ok, I don't want it to look like I always just copy Anna or anything, but on this, I agree wholeheartedly with her.

I too found the tone of the sex therapy thread fairly puerile and distasteful. Anyone who knows me will tell you that I'm no prude, but it felt more in keeping with the Nuts message board than the EDF . And in answer to your very pertinent question Ladymuck, I read it because I was interested in the original topic, and stopped reading when the original theme changed so dramatically.

Maybe it just all comes back to the perennial question about what makes the forum an interesting place and we should ask Admin to create a teenage smut section to keep everyone happy.

[Ladymuck]

And in answer to your very pertinent

> question Ladymuck,

I read it because I was

> interested in the original topic, and stopped

> reading when the original theme changed so

> dramatically.

That is EXACTLY the point Rosie H. I.e. you stopped reading once it no longer appealed to you...the fact that annaj CONTINUED reading DESPITE her assertion that she found the experience "really unpleasant" seems, to me anyway, a little unconvincing.

>

> Maybe it just all comes back to the perennial

> question about what makes the forum an interesting

> place and we should ask Admin to create a teenage

> smut section to keep everyone happy.

You could well be right (huge burst of laughter:)))!

[Keef]

They are responding to the expectations of a Heat Magazine society and that, in my opinion, is what need to change.

Surely then, it's all the fault of the women who buy these trashy mags ;-)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I support annaj and RosieH and found the direction that the Sex Therapist thread took most unseemly and distasteful and not worthy to have its place on this fine fora, of which, we are all justly proud.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They are responding to the expectations of a Heat

> Magazine society and that, in my opinion, is what

> need to change.

>

> Surely then, it's all the fault of the women who

> buy these trashy mags ;-)

I don't know why you are wrong Keef, but you surely must be as a working and social lifetime has taught me that very few things are the fault of Women, even when, on the surface there would be irrefutable "proof" that something is, indeed, their fault.

But its not.

Learn...B)

[Tony.London Suburbs]

"Possibly" Off-Topic:) but its like yesterday when myfriend, accidently, broke the microwave plate.

Now you or I, Keef, would surely accept that is 100% our fault but wait (!) the response was "Hi Tony (sweet, innocent smile) Was the microwave plate already cracked a little?"..

Game, Set and Match to the lovely Lady with the sweet smile.:))

[Ladymuck]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I support annaj and RosieH and found the direction

> that the Sex Therapist thread took most unseemly

> and distasteful and not worthy to have its place

> on this fine fora, of which, we are all justly

> proud.

That's fair enough Tony.London Suburbs, it really is. However, I fear that you too are missing my point. My original posting on this thread was merely to point out MY distaste at Mockney's apparent double standards - no more than that.