What a stupid term ‘battered wives’ is. I assume then that it is only married women who face domestic violence? and the only form of violence they face is physical? Although I did find out through a very reliable source that ‘feminist activists’ murdered Erin’s pet dog, maybe thats why she hates ‘them’ so much?
Feminism isn’t instantly connected with domestic violence against women, one is related to empowerment. the other is about protection.
I think Feminism is pretty important part of society, without the understanding of it you lose alot of things. For a paper that’s target auidence is women, it seems not to have a good word to say about them.
As for Feminism I guess they wouldn’t be happy with the sexualisation of that girl on the front, maybe that’s why the Mail continously mentions it, it’s a worry for there entirely Male out look.
Clever use of subliminal messages here:
What the mail is saying is – why I hate feminism is that it has empowers people like Baroness Scotland.
They probably toyed with – why I hate racial equality…
Oh come off it. Even if she’s 19, she still looks like jailbait, and the Mail’s been slobbering over her for yonks now. Not quite a Star/Charlotte Church situation, but still pretty sordid.
It is indeed ironic that a paper with so many female readers has such an animus against feminism. But then as Sigmund F. asked, what do women really want? Back in the nineties I read an article (yes, it was in the Mail) by a Swedish lady journalist who had for years campaigned for the ‘New Man’, calling for men to do their bit around the house etc etc. She found a husband in Sweden who went along with all this, had a baby by him and then she carried on with her high-powered journalistic career while he stayed at home to look after the little moppet. Anyway, while on a trip to London she met a man who in her words ‘reminded me of Clark Gable’. She eloped with this guy and poor old Swedish hubby was left, quite literally, holding the baby. So ladies, do you really want men to be all caring and sensitive, potential house hubbies, or do you secretly despise such men? Is it not really the case that nearly all women, given the choice between an earnest house-hubby, always ready to share his emotions, or a guy who reminds them of Clark Gable, will choose the latter every time?
Emma Watson-In a perfect example of the “male gaze” Emma Watson is put on the front page because she’s pretty and is wearing a short skirt. The Mail knows a couple of old men will pick up the paper simply because the actress is on the front page. She’s partly being used to sell newspapers simply because she’s good looking, the complete opposite of what feminism fought for. The Mail is also making a generalisation that its female readership will enjoy reading about fashion a rather sexist but not entirely untrue assumption. Juxtaposed with this however, Emma Watson is a successful, smart young woman who is studying at Brown University (something a woman wouldn’t have been able to do a good couple of years ago) and is the perfect example of what a young woman can achieve in the 21st century. Putting her on the front page also celebrates this.
Baroness Scotland- Apart from their hysteria and their usual agenda, the Mail is rightly condemning her for hiring an illegal immigrant. Baroness Scotland is being judged not on her sex but on her actions and her character. A man who would have done the same thing would have been treated in exactly the same way and that is what feminists fought for, equal treatment under the law. Baroness Scotland is the first woman Attorney General since the post was set up and was the first black woman to be a QC. She is another example of the triumph of feminism and what it has done for women all over the world.
And then this-
“Why I hate feminism”- by a woman who probably wouldn’t have been allowed to write for a newspaper if feminists hadn’t fought for equal rights. The woman makes some good points that demonising men is bad and that Harriet Harman is a nutjob, but she ends up putting feminism under one umbrella and then condemns the entire ideology. Her article is about nothing more than a thinly conceived agenda to bang on about mythical family values and a chance to hit on gay marriage.
But hang on, the article on feminism is aimed at a female audience. The front page is basically aimed at women. Why? Because the Mail’s main readership is mostly female who love nothing more than bitch about successful women (baroness Scotland), read about fashion (Emma Watson) and enjoy reading about self loathing women (I hate feminism) Why? Because women hate other women more than men and that’s the truth.
i’ve seen a lot of pics of emma watson at fashion week in the papers, and that one in the mail is a bit more pose-y than the ones a lot of other papers used (they tended to use catwalk-y pics instead). it could be coincidence of course but i cant help thinking it was a deliberate choice to use a photo that draws attention to her rather than to the dress (they have been going on about her for years after all).
At least the Mail are just getting to the point vis a vis their misogyny. No more subtle digs at Women’s Lib, just straight out attacks on feminism. I soon expect some articles such as
WHY I HATE IMMIGRATION
WHY I HATE HOMOSEXUALS
WHY I HATE THE POOR
written by, respectively, an immigrant, a gay man and someone working-class, for the requisite veneer of impartiality and heavy dose of self-loathing.
To put Baroness Scotland on the Front Page, not once but several times, concerning what is something of a non-story is rather suspect. They are using what was a fairly small technical breach of a law to bash something they do not like. They do not like her because she is female, she is black and she is Labour. The Mail sees an opportunity to take down this kind of person and can’t resist.
The Mail columnist’s article about hating feminism is standard Mail fare. They always use a woman journalist to bad mouth the feminist cause. As for ‘making good points about Harriet Harman being a nutjob’. How, exactly, is she a nut job? She is an intelligent, fiercely principled Labour politician who has worked for years to advance British laws and the way not just women are treated but many unrepresented groups. She has helped make the legal system more accessible to people.
The Daily Mail are a parody of themselves. They may as well start calling themselves the Daily Hate.
Are we supposed to know who Emma is?
It’ her off of Harry Potter.
What a stupid term ‘battered wives’ is. I assume then that it is only married women who face domestic violence? and the only form of violence they face is physical? Although I did find out through a very reliable source that ‘feminist activists’ murdered Erin’s pet dog, maybe thats why she hates ‘them’ so much?
Glad to see the Mail sexualising children on the cover.
Feminism isn’t instantly connected with domestic violence against women, one is related to empowerment. the other is about protection.
I think Feminism is pretty important part of society, without the understanding of it you lose alot of things. For a paper that’s target auidence is women, it seems not to have a good word to say about them.
As for Feminism I guess they wouldn’t be happy with the sexualisation of that girl on the front, maybe that’s why the Mail continously mentions it, it’s a worry for there entirely Male out look.
Clever use of subliminal messages here:
What the mail is saying is – why I hate feminism is that it has empowers people like Baroness Scotland.
They probably toyed with – why I hate racial equality…
I think that emma, what’s off ‘Arry Potter, is 19 so she’s not really a girl.
she’s a laydeeeee
So their message of the say is ‘Feminism sucks.. phoar look at that totty’
And women buy this?
The Baroness is a new Mail target. They will bang on about it for weeks or until she goes.
Oh come off it. Even if she’s 19, she still looks like jailbait, and the Mail’s been slobbering over her for yonks now. Not quite a Star/Charlotte Church situation, but still pretty sordid.
It is indeed ironic that a paper with so many female readers has such an animus against feminism. But then as Sigmund F. asked, what do women really want? Back in the nineties I read an article (yes, it was in the Mail) by a Swedish lady journalist who had for years campaigned for the ‘New Man’, calling for men to do their bit around the house etc etc. She found a husband in Sweden who went along with all this, had a baby by him and then she carried on with her high-powered journalistic career while he stayed at home to look after the little moppet. Anyway, while on a trip to London she met a man who in her words ‘reminded me of Clark Gable’. She eloped with this guy and poor old Swedish hubby was left, quite literally, holding the baby. So ladies, do you really want men to be all caring and sensitive, potential house hubbies, or do you secretly despise such men? Is it not really the case that nearly all women, given the choice between an earnest house-hubby, always ready to share his emotions, or a guy who reminds them of Clark Gable, will choose the latter every time?
This entire front page is a conundrum.
Emma Watson-In a perfect example of the “male gaze” Emma Watson is put on the front page because she’s pretty and is wearing a short skirt. The Mail knows a couple of old men will pick up the paper simply because the actress is on the front page. She’s partly being used to sell newspapers simply because she’s good looking, the complete opposite of what feminism fought for. The Mail is also making a generalisation that its female readership will enjoy reading about fashion a rather sexist but not entirely untrue assumption. Juxtaposed with this however, Emma Watson is a successful, smart young woman who is studying at Brown University (something a woman wouldn’t have been able to do a good couple of years ago) and is the perfect example of what a young woman can achieve in the 21st century. Putting her on the front page also celebrates this.
Baroness Scotland- Apart from their hysteria and their usual agenda, the Mail is rightly condemning her for hiring an illegal immigrant. Baroness Scotland is being judged not on her sex but on her actions and her character. A man who would have done the same thing would have been treated in exactly the same way and that is what feminists fought for, equal treatment under the law. Baroness Scotland is the first woman Attorney General since the post was set up and was the first black woman to be a QC. She is another example of the triumph of feminism and what it has done for women all over the world.
And then this-
“Why I hate feminism”- by a woman who probably wouldn’t have been allowed to write for a newspaper if feminists hadn’t fought for equal rights. The woman makes some good points that demonising men is bad and that Harriet Harman is a nutjob, but she ends up putting feminism under one umbrella and then condemns the entire ideology. Her article is about nothing more than a thinly conceived agenda to bang on about mythical family values and a chance to hit on gay marriage.
But hang on, the article on feminism is aimed at a female audience. The front page is basically aimed at women. Why? Because the Mail’s main readership is mostly female who love nothing more than bitch about successful women (baroness Scotland), read about fashion (Emma Watson) and enjoy reading about self loathing women (I hate feminism) Why? Because women hate other women more than men and that’s the truth.
Confused much? I am.
i’ve seen a lot of pics of emma watson at fashion week in the papers, and that one in the mail is a bit more pose-y than the ones a lot of other papers used (they tended to use catwalk-y pics instead). it could be coincidence of course but i cant help thinking it was a deliberate choice to use a photo that draws attention to her rather than to the dress (they have been going on about her for years after all).
Despite what you say Sarah
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215813/BREAKING-NEWS-Baroness-Scotlands-housekeeper-arrested.html
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
At least the Mail are just getting to the point vis a vis their misogyny. No more subtle digs at Women’s Lib, just straight out attacks on feminism. I soon expect some articles such as
WHY I HATE IMMIGRATION
WHY I HATE HOMOSEXUALS
WHY I HATE THE POOR
written by, respectively, an immigrant, a gay man and someone working-class, for the requisite veneer of impartiality and heavy dose of self-loathing.
“Battered wives” could just be interpreted as those who drink too much.
For the Fail to accuse anyone of being shameless is just a tad hypocritical don’t you think?
See this mornings Mail on Sunday. It seems that the Mail is now employing an illegal immigrant, this time knowingly.
Is’nt everybody who are called Baroness,Lord,or any other of those primitive so-called titled scum Shameless?.
So she wont quit
Neither will all those lying bastard’s who write the lies in the mail.
Erin Pizzey is always worth listening to.
Sarah,
To put Baroness Scotland on the Front Page, not once but several times, concerning what is something of a non-story is rather suspect. They are using what was a fairly small technical breach of a law to bash something they do not like. They do not like her because she is female, she is black and she is Labour. The Mail sees an opportunity to take down this kind of person and can’t resist.
The Mail columnist’s article about hating feminism is standard Mail fare. They always use a woman journalist to bad mouth the feminist cause. As for ‘making good points about Harriet Harman being a nutjob’. How, exactly, is she a nut job? She is an intelligent, fiercely principled Labour politician who has worked for years to advance British laws and the way not just women are treated but many unrepresented groups. She has helped make the legal system more accessible to people.
The Daily Mail are a parody of themselves. They may as well start calling themselves the Daily Hate.