Table of Contents
They said it was impossible, they said it couldn’t be done, yet: there you have it, the Dominion Post has become even worse under new editor Anna Fifield’s stewardship.
The headline reference to ‘Frankenstein’ actually relates to author Mary Shelley’s mother; Mary Wollstonecraft and the recent unveiling of a memorial dedicated to her deemed by Ms McLeod as somewhat monstrous and inappropriate.
Wollstonecraft has been elevated to the status of the world’s first feminist in some circles, despite dying about a century before the term was coined, but, that debatable claim aside, Mary deserves her latter-day recognition as she was indeed a ground-breaking writer of both politics and travel, a philosopher, novelist and life-long advocate for the equality of all women, and indeed men. So what’s not to like?
McLeod writes:
“A group of women has raised funds to put up a statue of Mary Wollstonecraft in Newington Green, north London, where she once lived, to honour her memory. It was unveiled last week.”
Except that it isn’t “a statue of Mary Wollstonecraft.” The work is ‘A Sculpture for Mary Wollstonecraft’, ‘of’ and ‘for’ being two entirely different concepts, a misconception but which by a modicum of research Rosemary may have been relieved of her resultant angst. The creator responsible, artist Maggi Hambling, had previously produced a memorial for composer Benjamin Britten which resembles and is indeed titled, a ‘Scallop’. Ms Hambling does not pretend Mr Britten was a shellfish or had scallop-like tendencies.
Ms McLeod’s response was disparaging. “Mother and daughter were both radicals in their time, so how better to present Wollstonecraft than naked, in metal, right? Or maybe not” and indignant “as perfectly pinup proportioned, and by a bizarre mound of pubic hair that one writer has compared to a cauliflower.”
Despite McLeod’s ignorant premise, perhaps she has a point. Our modern opinionist-feminist disappointed by the focus on the female form, naked, ‘perfectly pinup proportioned’, debasing a statement of reverence for a fine intellect and publicly outspoken conscience to a lewd commentary on female body-bits.
So: what’s so terrible about McLeods column?
Rosemary once, claiming to have an open mind, opined of another soapbox opinionist “with someone like him you know before you start what you’ll be reading. It’s a comfortable thumb-suck for his followers.” This, sadly, has become de-rigueur for Rosemary. Almost nothing escapes her keyboard without the comfortable thumb-suck of Trumphobia, obsessed by his awfulness, anything or anybody to do with him is fair game for our fiesty feminist. This includes in the quoted column, where his wife, whose “silicone breasts, which I fear are dragging Melania down these days and spoil[ing] her elegant line” and daughter “No woman that thin has breasts that big without surgical aid, and she can’t argue that it’s due to having three children because in Trumpland women don’t breastfeed” are attacked.
Clever people like you don’t need me to point out McLeod’s pathetic morals paradox. But, more importantly, since when did it become ok in a ‘serious’ newspaper to discuss politicians, and their partners or families, breasts? Is that a lefty thing? Can we expect commentary on the prime minister’s, or perhaps the leader of the opposition’s, next week? How extremely, utterly, juvenile.
Shame on you; Dompost. Shame. Once was worthy, now so rotten the rubbish-bin would reject you.
