Why does the Mail hate women so much? Conversely, why is it so popular with women? Are they self-hating fascists or something?
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by ben: Why does the Mail hate women so much? Conversely, why is it so popular with women? Are they self-hating fascists or something?
If you'd ever listened to a gang of women doing themselves down, this wouldn't even be a question.
-------------------- Maria's got a rifle Posts: 116
| IP: Logged
Why does the Mail hate women so much? Conversely, why is it so popular with women? Are they self-hating fascists or something?
I'm not sure what the Daily Mail have done wrong in this case, they just seem to be reporting some research. As for your why does the daily Mail hate woman so much question, I don't know as I don't read it.
Posts: 786
| IP: Logged
posted
With my boring-but-factual head on for a moment, the point about the Daily Mail story is its scaremongering tone and its lack of a balancing viewpoint.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Methinks Benno is running out of useful things to report.
I was thinking the same.
Ben's post was the forum equivalent of those pointless 1/4 column articles which appear in the some of the worst newspapers. After reading, you're left thinking "why would someone bother writing that?"
posted
This from someone who posted the Cambodian midgets spam.
It would have been better if I could have got a screenshot of the Mail's front page, as the Pill/sex drive story was the front page twelvety-million-point scaretastic headline. The paper has past form of gloating stories about how 'career women' eventually turn cancerous and suicidal, while any sexual conduct other than abstinence prior to wedding night makes your tits drop off.
Given that society seems to becoming more liberal/feminist in outlook, the Mail is bucking a trend - perhaps it's the refuge of more traditionally-minded women who fear change or resent the wider range of choices available to younger generations. At any rate, the rabid editorial voice combined with climbing sales (four million?) are, I'd argue, symptomatic of some wider social phenomenon.
Think there's something here about gender relations (the Mail is edited by a man - with a very traditionally male view of women's place in the world... yet has a disproportionately female readership) that's worth teasing out; something too, as OJ notes, about the way scientific findings can be reported/spun.
I was stuck in an 'away day' for most of yesterday, so apologies for not explaining myself more clearly.
Posts: 8657
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic