According to various dictionaries, it means soil. Muck. Dirt. To use it in a sentence (in case you are part of a spelling bee), let's say: "Mama wiped the schmutz off Heine's face when he came back from the playground."
"Schmutz" is how the NY POST and other tabloids make their money. Instead of wiping it away, they put it on the front page. They don't care if it's "invasion of privacy" as long as they can snigger the excuse that it's "news."
That brings me to Annie Schmutz Seifullah.
Watta name. Yes, it's appropriate for her. Any time she can take a selfie (or Seifullah) in a schmutz pose, she seems to do it. That's how her bra-and-pantyhose picture got into the NY Post recently.
Years ago, the definition of "obscenity" was schmutz that "appeals to prurient interest." Is there anything more prurient than wanting to see some sexy pictures that a woman happened to have on her computer? I wonder how many people at the NY Post have similar images of themselves on THEIR computers. Or worse. And would they consider it an "invasion of privacy" if somebody put them on the 4Chan website, or started selling them on eBay as "my ex-girlfriend" pictures?
The excuse here, and it's a pretty shabby one, is that Ms. Seifullah worked in a school, and thus, should be held to a higher standard than, say, somebody who works at the N.Y. Post.
Isn't that slut shaming? The woman's horny. She had some pictures on her computer at work that were PRIVATE. Once in a while she brought some guy into her private office for some fun. If a man did it, everyone would applaud and wink. Nobody would be showing HIS pictures.
This is the 21st Century. Is it really a big deal what somebody does after hours, or on a lunch break? Apparently YES, if the person is a FEMALE. And YES, if the person happens to be a teacher or a principal, instead of a doctor, lawyer or Native American chief.
The sad truth about this tawdry bit of schmutz is that the N.Y. Post (and you and I) would never have known about it except her boyfriend became enraged at her SLUTTY behavior. You can read it for yourself. He was shacking up with Schmutz, and that was fine, except he discovered that the two of them were not yet in a monogamous exclusive relationship.
So he blew his...top. And he got EVEN. "The angry ex turned over three...laptops he obtained while living with Seifullah..." In other words, he stole the pictures. Is that journalism? She "played me for a fool," said this guy...and, worse, she "used her power and position as principal to...seek several sexual partners..."
Really? She used her position as principal? Let's be honest. She made herself available. That's all she had to do. She could've been one of the cafeteria help. Schmutz is not unattractive. She didn't say "I am the school principal, and if you have sex with me, I'll get you a high paying job." She was interested in a job and so was her "old lover" and whoever else she was seeing. And it's no reason for her private pictures to be on view in the N.Y. Post.
Slut shaming. Schmutz shaming. It's creepy and it's wrong. And yet, the unidentified male who was her boyfriend, can actually emerge as the "good" guy for stealing her nude photos and bringing them to the N.Y. Post and all its readers. "You gave him head while my child was in the building," he apparently raged. It would've been ok if she gave HIM head, right? He would've said, "Sure, blow me, me kid is two floors away and won't know about it...unless I write it up in the N.Y. Post."
Guess what, half a million people could be found with RACY PICTURES in their possession simply by having a copy of the N.Y. Post.
There's such a thing as NSFW pictures ("Not Safe for Work") but what BIG percentage of office workers have "racy" pictures on their computers or cell phones...of themselves or others?
It's pretty clear, isn't it, that Schmutz's boyfriend would've had no problems banging her during a lunch hour, or after 3pm in her office. He just had a problem with somebody ELSE doing it. And that's slut shaming.
No comments:
Post a Comment