[caption id="attachment_19255" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Whats a TV historian meant to look like?"][/caption]
One of the great things about punk, perhaps the greatest, was the brief period when a woman didn't have to be a 'dolly bird' to be in band. There they came in all shapes and sizes and with an avalanche of talent and attitude.
This seems like some long lost era when you look at today's mainstream media which is stuffed full of pouting desperadoes. It's got so tragic that the sight of TV historian Mary Beard has drawn comment from the Sunday Times TV critic and dusty old relic, AA Gill who wrote.
”ËMary Beard should be kept away from cameras altogether.' he wrote in his TV column, adding, 'She's this far from being the subject of a Channel 4 dating documentary.' which was a reference to The Undateables, a Channel 4 series about people with disabilities or facial disfigurements.
In another previous review he wrote, ”ËFor someone who looks this closely at the past, it is strange she hasn't had a closer look at herself before stepping in front of a camera.'
He added: ”ËThe hair is a disaster, the outfit an embarrassment. If you are going to invite yourself into the front rooms of the living, then you need to make an effort.'
This is the AA Gill who shot a primate from a distance to see what it was like to kill something. A very detached, 21st century sniggering lads mag act of cowardice.
Does anyone really look at a history series and care about whether the presenter has the right hair? or the right clothes on? For the record Mary Beard is a really good presenter who gets a lot of information over with enthusiasm and makes it really interesting. Power to her for looking the way she wants, just because she's not a bimbo doesn't mean she doesn't possess her own TV charisma. Is the prime qualification for presenting a TV programme having plastic surgery or breasts stuffed with bags of jelly?
It seems quite bizarre that in 2012 someone is judging a history programme by what the presenter looks like, the seeping soft porn of modern culture has got everywhere. It's the downside of pop culture when everyone (especially women) in the public eye is expected to be sexy or good looking to the slavering male TV critic.