Why does the Guardian...

[MissM]

...publish articles like this piece of nonsense giving them tenuous (at best) links to feminism? The writer took offence to an innocent comment and suddenly it's all about feminism? Makes me so irritated as it takes away from the real feminist issues.

Interestingly, lots of the comments earlier on questioning whether this really was about feminism or not (including one I had written) were deleted by the moderator. I suspect the author is moderating it herself.

I have to say I can't tell that the woman the writer was talking to was doing more than saying 'have you been working out?' as a way of making conversation, rather than screeching 'Get thee behind me, sweat-fiend'. She was in workout clothes, unless she goes running in her officewear, does anyone actually get 'sweat shamed' for that?

A rather tenuous hook for the point that women are not meant to sweat under normal circs. The This Girl Can campaign has also focused on making sweating something that's seen positively.

That article made me laugh. Just sounded to me like one person trying to start a conversation with someone else in a queue.

I thought it read like a stealth boast about how far she could run and how much her exercise outfit cost.

The reason why the Guardian publishes such bollocks is because it attracts comments and backlinks from people who can't believe how bollocky it is. They really have turned into the chattering class version of the DM.

I've gone off the guardian since they appointed a buch of hyper-capitalist tax dodging blairites to their board of directors. It's full of shite.

As several of the comments said parts of The Guardian now resemble The Onion or The Daily Mash. I agree with the comment below.

"Eventually the caffeine kicked in": the writer deserves to be cliche-shamed

Interestingly, lots of the comments earlier on questioning whether this really was about feminism or not (including one I had written) were deleted by the moderator. I suspect the author is moderating it herself.

It was noticeably very heavily moderated. The majority of the comments were good natured , several were funny. Usually if a comment is hateful enough to be deleted you get the sense from remaining comments which often called out obnoxious comments.

I was following the comments from quite early on and lots of them were hilarious. And pretty much all of them were very reasonable. I actually appealed to the moderator at one point and asked why it was that so many comments were being deleted, only to be deleted!

My issue with Comment is Free (which this was a part of) is that it's supposed to be a forum for debate. Yet when the supposedly feminist link was questioned they were moderated, hence no debate. Bodily functions being stigmatised for women is of course an issue, but this article didn't give any evidence that this is what had happened in this case - the woman in the queue could have been friendly, or interested, or just trying to make polite smalltalk. Can't believe people are paid for writing such crap then trying to shoehorn it into something that actually matters.

I just had a read of the comments and spotted Beesimo. So that's were she went.

It's a silly article but the writer deserved to be called out on the "once I was back in the safety of my car" comment.

Really? A smartly dressed woman spoke to you in Starbucks and you need a place of safety?

squidzin I don't think the problem with The Guardian has anything to do with its proprietors. There's no suggestion the owners seek to exercise control over content.

The problem is the lack of editorial control in publishing rubbish like this and apparently giving the author moderator control : unless you think the editorial staff are in a secret conspiracy with the owners to publish so much nonsense the paper folds- that seems unlikely.

For every ham fisted and weird article in CiF, there is a gem like this one

I have observed that the quality of articles and essays in CiF is based on the abilities or experience of the writer.

I agree with the writer of the sweat shaming piece that it is a thing, however, the experience she wrote about wasn't really sweat shaming, even women are allowed to be sweaty after a run, or after sex, just not for too long and not too much. Had she written about the horrors women who sweat face in work situations, or social situations, it would have been far more relevant.

I think the owners are seeking to make a profit from click-bait quite openly.

No secret conspiracy, Quite blatant!

"I wanted to dive deep into that Lululemon Scuba and never come back up for air."

Oh good grief...

Archfarchnad - Nicely put. That's about all you really need to say about it. What a load of nonsense.

(and completely irrelevant, but your username has reminded me that I meant to go shopping today!)

Sweat shaming?????? Never heard of that before. I think the woman was probably trying to make conversation. I like running so I'd be quite likely to comment if I thought someone had just been running. Nothing negative about that at all, surely???

Oh please. One of the nice people in my local co-op asked me recently whether I'd been for a swim. I hadn't - I'd just been to a particularly sweaty spin class. I felt a bit embarrassed by my minginess, but my OH refuses to go into shops after a workout because he feels he is too sweaty for general consumption. Of course women's bodies are generally judged and scrutinised more than men's, but I actually think in this instance women are assumed to be "cleaner" than men, even if both are equally sweaty and showered equally recently.

I don't think this woman was being judged though was she. FWIW I wouldn't go into a coffee shop after a 12 mile run, not least because I'd stink!

There comments which have disappeared - not deleted by a moderator but just gone- including mine.

Oops sorry I was looking at wrong article. Ignore