Thanks Dave, for the fashion advice. It certainly is a backwards view that any female that works to advance the standing of women in society must be unkept and unattractive. Perhaps it is the view of some feminists that it is unimportant to conform to the materialistic demands of Western society – that a female is only attractive when she has dyed her hair blonde, sprayed on the fake tan, caked on 7kg of make up, spewed up her last meal, put on a belt for a skirt and filled up her chest with more silicone and fibreglass than a yacht.
But let’s take a critical look at Dave. Not only does he oppose the advancement of females in society, he also has a reputation for opposing anyone who isn’t a white Australian, and has a particular obsession with denouncing Muslims for many unfounded reasons, including (wait for it) the fact that they supposedly treat women poorly.
Now let’s take a look at Dave’s fashion. Size 44 cargo army pants. Come on Dave. The 90’s called – they want their fashion faux pas back. You might be able to blend into a dirty grey barn, but nothing else, sadly. Moving on up, we see a XXXL shirt bought from Lowes – from the specials table. It was down from $6.99 to $1.99. Then up top we see the unoriginal bogan stylings of dirty unwashed graying goatee/moustache arrangement that seems so suited to the Bundy swilling rednecks that grace glamorous suburbs like Cessnock and Kellyville. Finally the pair of sunglasses that were hastily purchased from the local service station, near the rack of hats that sport insightful slogans like ‘No Fat Chicks’… Irony much?
How counter-productive is a generalisation? How inconsiderate is a value judgement based solely on a person’s looks? Maybe Dave will enlighten us as to how it feels.