Sometimes it takes a man to tell it like it really is. Today, that man is Geoffrey Barker. Boy, does he have big balls. And brains.
Professor Barker has developed an algorithm for calculating intellect based purely upon physical appearance. Of course, any work of great genius has teething problems.
At the moment, the algorithm can only be applied to women: specifically, young women. Their brains are so small they make a perfect sample size. Put simply – for any of our female readers – the algorithm works like this. Starting from an initial input, the computations proceed through a finite number of successive states, eventually producing an output.
OK, let me dumb it down for the fair-haired out there:
Input A: blonde hair tumbling artfully onto the shoulders.
Input B: eyes, usually blue, sparkling brightly.
Input C: teeth, arctic white.
Input D: breasts, pert and perky.
Occasionally there are random inputs, such as “micky-mouse* diplomas in media studies and communications” from “undistinguished universities”.
The output is nothing short of extraordinary.
Each time, the experiment results in “urgent and empty chatter”, “barely coherent sentences”, and “little competence in collecting, assembling, and interpreting information”.
It appears to be impossible for an attractive female journalism graduate to perform her duties as a television reporter.
Interestingly, Professor Barker finds no such correlation with blond, bleached-teethed, pert-peced male journalists. Next year, he hopes to complete his PhD in why men are smarter than women, based on the size of their brains.
This will reference the work of English psychologist Raymond Cattell who, in the 1930s, considered blacks to be naturally inferior on account “of their small skull capacity”.
Admittedly, there is controversy about this line of research because of its links with the practice of eugenics in the Third Reich. But Professor Barker is not one who stumbles at minor hurdles.
His book, Sexing it Up: Iraq, Intelligence and Australia, was pilloried by the Australian Public Intellectual Network for, “containing factual errors: the Bush Administration came to power in 2001, not in 1999; the no fly zones were imposed on Iraq when Saddam savagely thwarted Iraqi uprisings following the 1990-91 Gulf War, not after he expelled UN inspectors in 1998”.
Frankly, this is an outrageous slur. After all, he isn’t female, blond or blue-eyed. How could he possibly have “little competence in collecting, assembling, and interpreting information”?
For what it’s worth (probably not much, as a blonde-haired, blue-eyed, previously-pert-breasted TV reporter) I think the Professor is a victim of the tall poppy syndrome.
Some critics point out the proliferation of talented journalists with the same inputs who trawled through the sludge of commercial television to forge stellar careers: Juanita Philips, Helen Dalley, Deborah Cornwall, Rosemary Church, Lara Logan, Alex Crawford, to name but a few.
Others – who shall remain nameless – are calling him ‘Mr. Misogynist’.
Clearly, he doesn’t hate women. He works with them, right? I think he might even have daughters. Fortunately, there’s one thing we all agree on: News and current affairs on commercial TV is sh*t. Unless you’re one of the millions who tunes in. Then, it’s ace.
Anyway, I’d better be off.
Time to give a speech at my alma mater (*tumbles hair artfully over shoulder*).
The title is, “Why Pretty Girls are Dumb B*tches Who Should Shut the F*ck Up”.
It’s dedicated to Geoffrey Barker.
What a man.
*I’m sure the venerable Professor wrote ‘Mickey Mouse diplomas’ in his original column. Must have been an incompetent, blonde, pert-breasted sub who changed it to ‘micky-mouse’. Oh, the humanity!
Tracey Spicer is a Sky News anchor, talkback radio broadcaster, www.thehoopla.com.au columnist, and Ambassador for the Learning Potential Fund at the Queensland University of Technology. Inexplicably, she had no trouble forming coherent sentences or collecting, assembling and interpreting information in her white-teethed, bright-eyed, pert-breasted youth.