The photographic memory owners amongst you may remember I had a similarly titled post way back in April (when my only readers were Jesse from twitter and my Mum) discussing the same issue: the Daily Mail. Or the Daily Misogynist, as we should rename it. If you want to take a peak at the part one-esque post it can be found here Have You Heard The News?
However, despite the deep meaningful conversation I had with DM over four months ago, they are continuing to embarrass/degrade/sexualise women via their infamous sidebar of shame which makes me madder than the time I was gyrated on by ‘Jemma-with-a-J’ in the mosh pit of a Lily Allen concert. (Hi Jemma if you’re reading, I still think of you every time I hear It’s not fair.) Here’s one of today’s headlines- or sidelines as they theoretically would be: Now I’m not quite sure who Lucy Meckleneiuekwo is and she doesn’t sound particularly impactful however the journalists at Daily Mail clearly have an eye on her chest…which I find slightly hard to understand because finding her cleavage is proving harder than Where’s Wally.I haven’t checked the definition of ‘cleavage’ recently but surely the line has to be a bit bigger in order to qualify for PLENTY to be in emphasised capitals; I’d understand if it said PLENTY of right nipple. But it doesn’t. So what I think Tom Daley Mail are actually trying to say is
The ground breaking news also featured an equally interesting story about Chrissy Teigen and her controversial decision to wear denim. She’s even got the rips in her jeans to prove how much of a whirlwind going to Miami was. But what’s so prominent about this article is that the subheading acts as if she’s purposely covering her body up to personally annoy the writer of this article, if you read between the lines it actually says: And it’s not just the 80s babies getting slammed here, Melanie Sykes takes her fair share of abuse for being the media’s version of old (which is 20 years younger than real time old). Notice how they put her age first, as if she can’t compete with the younger girls but if they put her in a separate category for older women she’ll place higher, seeming more desirable. What they’re really thinking is What makes me laugh most about the Daily for Males is the way they describe Sykes with incredible curves and ample assets (which sounds like a slogan for Barclays Bank) and sexy but then where’s all the creepily sycophantic love for Jeremy Clarkson? Granted, he may be a bit of a twat, but I’ve met Melanie Sykes and she was hardly pleasant so I refuse to take likeability as an excuse. No, if we’re degrading women to their ample assets (God now it’s sounding like one of Gareth Malone’s Military Wives Choirs) then we should at least make the effort to do the same to men: Side note: I have never cringed so much in my whole blog writing career than the moment I made this edit. I apologise for everyone who needs to be emotionally cleansed after having witnessed this monstrosity, I understand a viewer digression notice should probably be in order.
Although maybe that’s the point. We are so used to women being described in such a shallow and overbearing way that we have become numb to how terribly uncomfortable it really is- of course there are scenarios when topless men are described as ‘hot’ or ‘fit’ but it never seems to be the main factor of the article. Usually it’ll go onto describe WHY Channing Tatum is looking ‘ripped’ and that’ll be because he’s filming Magic Mike XXS or modelling for Abercrombie and Fitch or spending so long wondering why he has such a crap name that he sweats all his excess weight off, etc. But with women what they look like IS the article Until suddenly, a woman doesn’t look particularly glamorous (GASP) and these journalists go into meltdown because they don’t know how to write stories about people they don’t fancy. So in the absence of sexy shots and DDs they turn to Kevin Bacon for inspiration and describe Kristen with a film that came out before she was even born. Plus her face isn’t bare unless those sunglasses are invisible to everyone but me.
All those articles, all that completely irrelevant ‘news’ and it’s only been one day of compiling stories- imagine a week, a month, a year of compiling sexist statements and unflatteringly fake adjectives. When do we start treating women more like the Daily Mail treats Jeremy Clarkson? I’m afraid we’ve got a long wait yet. (For the visual learners amongst you: it’s the kind of long wait you have to do when you’re queuing for churros in France and the pensioner in front of you is paying for €43 of Pistache ice cream with a cheque.)
Before you go and wallow into the self pity of your inadequate feeling vagina, I’ve found the only article worth reading on their whole website today: You can thank me later- or maybe do it now if you enjoyed this post you can like, follow and comment- I adore your comments so please drop me a note below and we can chat about feminism/womanhood/pencil sharpeners/etc.
3 thoughts on “Have You Heard The Even Better News?”
This was amazing. Sexualising Jeremy Clarkson made me want to pour fresh spring water in my eyes, however just as a tribute to the crux of your piece I will extend the cleanse and try to erase all this fuckery from the Daily Fail from my eyes.
This paper, sadly, encourages people to see other humans as objects. What these women are actually doing seems to mean nothing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you! The inequalities between reporting on the genders was made even more apparent to me when I realised how weird it felt sexualising Jeremy Clarkson. Sadly the sidebar of shame is a popular feature on their website so I think it’ll be a long time before they change their ways (although Page 3’s gone so who knows…) Thanks for reading!
LikeLiked by 1 person