"Pantyhose debate exposes age gap," said the ABC news online headline but the linked video did no such thing; instead, it was a story about a business in Kansas that required female employees to wear 'em, contrasted with some on-the-sidewalks interviews with NYC office workers, who mostly go bare-legged. (Hey, don't look at me, I wear jeans to work. Every day. And even denim get torn up. I do not fly a desk).
Meh. I was expectin' to hear that older businesstypes were wearin' hose and younger ones were not and would not have been surprised to see the Authorized Journalists miss the point of varicose veins and support hose, 'cos one does not stay toned and unmarked forever, especially drivin' a desk on wages that don't support serious workout time.
Hah! Not even a mention that women live past, say, 35. Which is kinda freaky, given that at least one of the reporters in the video is well past that age. Plenty of coverage of the new, modern, wowie instant spray-on tanners (oh, liberation: leg makeup. Yeah) and the obligatory Sex and the City clip, 'cos that's like real and now.
Old Media: missin' the mark by miles since the Nixon-Kennedy debates. Now more than ever.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
5 comments:
No reason for women to have to wear pantyhose to work as long as the dress is casual enough that men can go barelegged too and wear shorts or a kilt.
Damn, didn't have my reading glasses on when your page came up, and the first thing that I saw on your post title was "Pantyhose exposes gap". I won't even say what went through my mind at first...
OT, but this stuff is wronger than wrong
earthbound misfit--
They may be wrong, but I'm seriously considering buying a "Hello Kitty" AR-15 NOW in case the next grandchild is a girl.
E-B, yeah, kinda wrong -- besides, chrome plating would hold up better!
The fabric-covered stocks actually look okay to me; I wouldn't do it but it sort of works. I'm in agreement with the commenter who disliked the huge, glued-on logos. They weaken the pieces by distracting.
Post a Comment