Answer: women are individuals, not part of an autonomous collective. Except for the ones who read Femail, who have been brainwashed into a cosy 1950s pigeon-hole.
SCIENCE here is used with its less known secondary meaning of “bollocks”. I predict generalisations drawn from the imagined behaviour patterns of neolithic cave-dwellers.
The Mail loves ridiculous teleological “just-so” stories about human behaviour. I think it’s because these essentially justify the status quo in some way. After all, if the world around us is that way because it is genetically predetermined, the Mail doesn’t have to explain why the poor and marginalised are left to rot and can get back to needlessly panicking about how civilised society is on the perpetual verge of descending into anarchy.
Femail doesn’t have a science section, don’t make me laugh. Its the most patronising female news section I know. If it did have a science section it would be written by Cheryl Cole and would be entitled, “Would Jade have lived if she’d drank two cups of coffee a day?”
1. Is that Sheryl Cole on the top? Did they NEED a picture of a hot woman rather than a, dare i say, average one. If it were a study about men I doubt Brad Pitt would be the cover image.
2. STRANDED! Hundreds of Brits forced to take a longer holiday in a nicer country, with no legal repercussions on their employment thanks to Labour’s progressive Employment laws that prevent companies from sacking people for 3rd party interference!!!
Answers:
Yes, Yes, and Preferably with a bit of meat on them.
SCIENCE!
oh god, i can already tell this is going to be hugely painful
Answer: women are individuals, not part of an autonomous collective. Except for the ones who read Femail, who have been brainwashed into a cosy 1950s pigeon-hole.
If they shut the channel, can’t we then just walk across?
No, no, and no. (The plumper the cushion etc etc)
(/Ian_paisley_mode)
If British fishermen did this, would the Mail take a different line?
SCIENCE here is used with its less known secondary meaning of “bollocks”. I predict generalisations drawn from the imagined behaviour patterns of neolithic cave-dwellers.
I couldn’t be less bothered about any of this if I tried.
The Mail loves ridiculous teleological “just-so” stories about human behaviour. I think it’s because these essentially justify the status quo in some way. After all, if the world around us is that way because it is genetically predetermined, the Mail doesn’t have to explain why the poor and marginalised are left to rot and can get back to needlessly panicking about how civilised society is on the perpetual verge of descending into anarchy.
So Brits go to France, disgusting behaviour.
God it must be a slow news day.
Femail doesn’t have a science section, don’t make me laugh. Its the most patronising female news section I know. If it did have a science section it would be written by Cheryl Cole and would be entitled, “Would Jade have lived if she’d drank two cups of coffee a day?”
I’m not being offensive, well not trying but I keep thinking that woman on the front is a man…
1. Is that Sheryl Cole on the top? Did they NEED a picture of a hot woman rather than a, dare i say, average one. If it were a study about men I doubt Brad Pitt would be the cover image.
2. STRANDED! Hundreds of Brits forced to take a longer holiday in a nicer country, with no legal repercussions on their employment thanks to Labour’s progressive Employment laws that prevent companies from sacking people for 3rd party interference!!!
Why does the Mail’s ‘Female’ section always seem to revolve around ‘why women are shit’?
The irony here is that apparently, for some awful Stockholm Syndrome type reasons, The Mail is apparently the most popular paper among women.
Fucking bizarre.
How the hell can those questions be answered by “science.” What kind of science studies stuff like that?
More stupidity to rot the brain.