Rant Against The Media: "Plus Size" Models

Every so often a model who isn't a stick manages to get a catwalk job, and the media go into a frenzy, like it's important or something. It taps into a bunch of issues about female body image: isn't it awful that models don't look like "real" women; doesn't this bombardment with images of skinny little flakes turn impressionable young gels into anorexics? I mean, what absolute rot! If exposure to skinny models caused people to stop eating, there'd be far fewer fatties around, and - to be serious for a moment - this kind of twaddle belittles the very serious psychological issues which actually underlie an eating disorder.

For goodness sake, being thin is the only skill a model actually possesses. That and the ability to pout and walk at the same time without falling over. Models have to look weird, otherwise you wouldn't be able to tell they were models. What next? Should we complain about models being pretty, because that gives ugly people low self esteem? It's PCGM.

Here are the simple truths: (1) skinny models make a designer's life easier because the clothing, and not the body, creates the shape they want; (2) in an age of excess, to be thin makes you look healthier and hence more attractive, and models are supposed to be attractive, because that makes us think the clothes look better.

Of course, no-one should have to starve themselves into corpse-like wastage before they're allowed out. I'm just ranting about the cheap bullshit peddled by our lovely media. Most people in this country are too fat, and even for those unfortunates who are too thin, it is insulting to lay the blame for all their problems on Kate Moss.

Freedom for Somewhere

When the Olympics come to the UK, will people around the world protest against the continuing Anglo-Saxon domination of the Romano-Britons?

For how long does a people need to be subjugated, before it is subsumed? Hundreds of years after the kingdoms were united, the Scots retain a strong sense of national identity, as do the Welsh. Yet I have never met an Anglo-Saxon who was still unhappy about the Norman invasion. Can we infer from this that it takes somewhere between 500 and 1000 years, before people stop worrying about whose side they are on?

As an aside, how about this solution to the Northern Ireland problem: a federal union of the Republic of Ireland and the UK, governed from the Isle of Man. It may not be very popular, nor practical, but it would really piss off Londoners.

Smoking

Time for a whinge. This time it is about another kind of whinger: the smoker. Whilst I appreciate that nicotine addicts must be feeling harried by the recent wave of smoking bans, it doesn't half get my hackles up when I hear or read their complaints.

The offending arguments usually go thus: "Blasted nanny state telling us what we can and can't do! I should be allowed to do whatever I want! Froth, froth, foam!" I find it scary that even supposedly intelligent people, such as columnists in national newspapers, come out with this guff. They describe smoking as if it is a hobby, merely a pleasant thing to do, when actually it is an addiction. They talk as if smoking were a human right, and neglect to consider other peoples' desire for simple things like breathing clean air and smelling nice. Intervening when one person's activities impinge upon the freedoms of another is not nannying, but is exactly what a government ought to do more often.

Whilst I feel for those poor, shivering souls huddled outside pub doorways in a sad little cloud of toxins, I cannot express my joy at the revolution in my own social experience. The pub is now a nice place to go, and in combination with the death of the 11 o'clock curfew, the ban has turned "going for a pint" into a pleasant and civilized way to spend time with my friends. I am therefore in full support of the ban. This does not, however, imply any kind of moral judgement on smokers, and I would fight for a smoker's right to smoke in their own home.

The more thoughtful smokers of my acquaintance are phlegmatic about the ban. They accept that smoking is an addiction and does have a negative effect on the people around them, and they understand that this is why it needs to be stopped in indoor, public spaces. They agree that smoking is bad for the health and that people should be encouraged to quit. They do not see all this as an attack on their personal freedom.

Nobody likes to be told they are in the wrong. I reckon the whinging smokers are merely reacting in an emotive way, feeling told off for their addiction and responding defensively, when they should be thoughtful. I wouldn't mind, but if those wrong headed values are spread about, it encourages people to continue smoking, which will encourage pubs to find ways around the ban – more covered, outdoor spaces with those awful, wasteful outdoor heaters – and even encourage people to reverse the ban.

Asking people not to smoke in certain places is not an attack on their freedom, any more than smoking around me was an attack on mine.