I can't remember what thread it was on, but someone here came up with a figure of 53% female readership for the Mail. No other national is even close to 50%.
Yes, it's sad that women are drawn to self-flagellating crap about diets and bikini bodies and how motherhood is the best thing evah. C'est la vie, I'm afraid. In their defence, they may have grown up reading Jackie, Cosmopolitan, Heat and Woman's Own, where they'll have learned how to hate themselves as women. But we'd all like the general public to be a bit less gullible with regards to the media they consume, wouldn't we, or we wouldn't hang out on this forum?
It also goes to show that the industry, and indeed the whole notion of 'news', is still steeped in patriarchy. I can't for the life of me explain why, for example, on the Today programme there are special slots-of-importance set aside for sports and business news, each with its own separate presenter. I mean, if John Humphries and the other chaps (and the token woman) can interview politicians and artists and inventors and charity workers all in the same programme, surely they can stretch to asking a footballer if he's happy to have won a game or sad to have lost it.
I think...and again this is opinion, I have nothing to back it up, that women read the mail because it means they do not have to reconsider their choices, or the agenda they support. For anyone,male or female, accepting they may have been decieved or deluded, and even worse perpetuated that deception is a step of true courage.
Far easier to read something that tells you everyone judges on looks and bank balance and that poor sex and relationships are simply your lot in life.
Soon, if we are not prudent, millions of people will be watching each other starve to death through expensive television sets. Nye Bevan