Welcome to Hero, Shocker and Whinger of the Week!
Spring has sprung, and to celebrate the season of flowers, birds and bees, and the recommencement of leg shaving, our theme for this week’s Hero, Shocker and Whinger of the Week is…
Love.
Let’s get this love boat on the… sea.
Hero of the Week goes to…
Tindafella, the bloke recreating the profile pictures of girls he meets on Tinder.
All images via Tindafella on Tumblr.
Shocker of the Week goes to…
The guy who jerked off into his co-worker’s coffee. Seriously.
Via CBS:
On Aug. 28, Lind agreed to meet with police at the New Brighton Public Safety Center, the complaint states. While talking with officers, he admitted to ejaculating on his co-worker’s desk and coffee on Aug. 26, which was his birthday. He then went on to admit that he’d ejaculated in her coffee twice in the last six months, and on her desk four times, wiping up the mess with the scrunchy.
With her scrunchie? WITH HER SCRUNCHIE?!
But, it’s okay, you guys: it was his birthday. And, if you can’t sexually harass a co-worker on your birthday, when can you, right?
No. Wrong.
Whinger of the Week goes to…
The wedding invite companies that are refusing to put the full names of female guests on invites.
Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell just wanted the women invited to her celebration of eternal love to have their own, full, names on her wedding invitations. Unfortunately, when she sent her mum to get the invitations printed, this stationery company put that in the too hard basket:
When my mother instructed a stationery vendor to begin our wedding invitation with “[Mother’s name] and [Father’s name] request the pleasure of your company . . . ,” the stationer was aghast. In all her years of crafting wedding invitations, she squawked, not once had she veered into such utterly tacky territory. My mother called me in a panic, convinced that my requested wording would subvert the proper order of the universe.
And then? Things got worse.
She sent the calligrapher an Excel spreadsheet with all our invitees’ names and told her to transcribe them exactly as we had them or else suffer the wrath of Bridezilla. The calligrapher agreed.
But guess what form of address was on the envelopes that my married friends received? “Mr. and Mrs. Robert Smith.” Even, in at least one case, where the wife had kept her maiden name.
Listen, calligraphers. We pay you the money, you write what we say.
Ugh.
Who was your Hero, Shocker and Whinger of the week?
Like Mamamia Rogue on Facebook
Rogue is Mamamia’s space for fun, viral and random content, with everything from feminism to pop culture. We scour the internet so you don’t have to, and bring all the best bits back.
Top Comments
Conversely, if a woman does take her husband's name, I guess "Mr and Mrs Robert Smith" is entirely appropriate ...
Except that women don't generally take the mans first name. Why shouldn't it be Mrs. Jane and Mr. Robert Smith. She does have a first name.
It was once the norm for women to be known officially by their husband's full name. So Mrs Robert Smith was once an accepted way of addressing a woman.
I think Luxxe was being tongue-in-cheek...
Yes, women also didn't used to be allowed to own property. Times have changed, and women are no longer their father or husband's property, and have their own names and identities. I don't know a single woman who wants to me known as Mrs [husbands full name] now!!
Shocker of the week...the Greens senator who gets upset when we refer to extremist types who rape, murder children and decapitate foreign reporters as terrorists. You can't upset them!
That'd be Peter Whish Wilson. According to this sterling example of personhood, terrorists, I mean, chaps, who behead children and shoot 300 unarmed Iraqi prisoners at a time must be regarded as the moral equivalent of Australian Army personnel, and we shouldn't hurt those collegiate chaps' feelings. What does the Senator think we should be calling rapists, one wonders?
If you take his point in context, what he means is that it is a matter of perspective. The people of Afghanistan who have had the crap bombed out of their homes and their children killed by American soldiers may very well consider American troops to be "terrorists". After all, they invaded and created "terror" within the population. It's a matter of perspective.
His point was that the whole issue is a lot more complicated than we think it is, which is true. His other point was that the whole "TERRORIST!!!!!!!" fear mongering doesn't help the situation either.
Both of which are very valid points.