The Guardian ran my Gingers last month attracting hundreds of comments on everything from prejudice to photoshop. Most were positive but here were some of my favourites that made me stop and scratch my head.
Should the Guardian be regularly furthering this '-ism'?
Dislike of, or finger-pointing at, red-heads is as divisive and unpleasant as any other -ism. Would you run a piece titled 'pictures of blacks' or 'pictures of peglegs'?
It is discrimination, and unhelpful.
Nice pics, but I find it very odd that they virtually all have exactly the same shade of red hair.
That oddness you sense is from the 50,000 photoshop adjustment layers. The colours are an exaggeration, if not a lie.
He's used a lot of light, presumably to emphasis the paleness of the subjects and fit more with the stereotype, that's likely to wash it out a bit. He may have tweaked the colour afterwards I suppose as well.
I have to say, coincidentally, I saw the first family during the Bank Holiday weekend, at a wedding, and I think the images here, give a very faithful representation of how striking and beautiful their colouring was, in the flesh.
This is a stupid article. Why is the colour of someones hair a category onto itself at all? How is "ginger", so called, different from any other colour in the spectrum?
I can't really work out whether this has anything to do with the upcoming referendum, but it sure as hell is patronising.
That is odd, I thought it was a Lifestyle fluff piece.
You do know you're in the Fashion subsection of the Life & Style part of the paper, don't you? If you want the major world news, go here: http://www.theguardian.com/world
In his change before last, Doctor Who touched his head and said "At least I'm not ginger!". It put me off the writers completely.
What he actually said was "I’m still not ginger".
This was a reference to when Christopher Eccleston's Doctor regenerated into David Tennant and he made a point of asking if he had ginger hair. When told that he didn't he then expressed disappointment, claiming that he had always wanted ginger hair.
What a hugely UK-centic article; Red heads share a world-wide association (bit light on in Asia, Africa and the sub-continent though) and attract different labels in different countries.
Is their any other group of people of whom it is considered ok to refer to them as a foodstuff? Every other example I can think of is considered racist. Ginger didn't use to have this meaning, it turned up in the late fifties and frankly I wish it would piss off.
I believe French people frequently call British people "Le Rosbif" after roast beef. Americans call us Limeys and the Australian name "Pom" is popularly believed to derive from "pomegranate". Alternatively it may have been mixed up with the French name for the Irish - "pommes" from "pomme de terre" or "potato".
After complaints to Advertising Standards in Australia about adverts using "poms" they concluded that the words, in relation to the British, were not offensive.
However I'm pretty sure calling the Irish potatoes would be considered pretty racist.
So there you go.
Australians call the British poms because it's an abbreviation for Prisoner of Mother England. So that's not a food stuff.
Best thing you can do as a ginger man is move out of Britain. You instantly become 10x sexier.