News from Australia (story here):
A plea for lovelorn female “ugly ducklings” to move to a remote Australian mining town [Mt Isa] to reverse a shortage of eligible women has landed the local mayor in hot water.
Is it just me, or is this one of these stories that causes a visceral offense reaction, but then it is harder to articulate exactly what the grounds for offense are. In the story, a woman from Mt Isa is quoted as saying, “It paints the women here as second rate and suggests the men will settle for anything. I think it’s quite disgusting.” As for her first claim, it doesn’t seem to me like it doesn’t present the women already there as second rate, just not polyandrous. And, if the issue is that it is unflattering to the men, well that seems more offensive than the original comment: Yo, ugly duckling women, don’t think that if you move here you’ll have any better luck finding a man who’ll see anything redeemible in you. Our men are better than that. So, then, is it offensive because it implies that unattractiveness is a cause of being single? Or, that single people might be motivated to move somewhere to have better mating prospects? Or, that men seem to place a high value on physical attractiveness? Or, that it should be the single women who are moving instead of the single men (but, wait, he’s the mayor, so presumably he wants to bring people to his down)?
Granted, it’s easier for me to explain why the statement can be taken as offending the mayor’s town. You can imagine seeing the sign as you drive into the town: Mt Isa: Whatever Else, It Beats Dying Alone.