-
Daily Mail surpasses itself.
I was out shopping this morning and saw the front page of the Daily Mail. People like me who believe there is a valid point behind political correctness when it's not taken too far are an endangered species these days (or it sometimes feels like that), so, when I saw this story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39416554
I did think "don't overreact, it's probably not as bad as you think it is - the story was written by a woman (David Gove's wife I believe) after all".
So, I'm so glad that it's now getting a barage of criticism from some sources that would hardly be called bastions of political correctness - I suppose that the Mail are getting the attention they want, but I think this might turn out to be a case where the adage about any publicity being good publicity is proved wrong.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I was out shopping this morning and saw the front page of the Daily Mail. People like me who believe there is a valid point behind political correctness when it's not taken too far are an endangered species these days (or it sometimes feels like that), so, when I saw this story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39416554
I did think "don't overreact, it's probably not as bad as you think it is - the story was written by a woman (David Gove's wife I believe) after all".
So, I'm so glad that it's now getting a barage of criticism from some sources that would hardly be called bastions of political correctness - I suppose that the Mail are getting the attention they want, but I think this might turn out to be a case where the adage about any publicity being good publicity is proved wrong.
what is wrong with it? who says we should only judge a person based on their deeds or actions? its hardly sexist to make a comment about women's legs. at what point is the article suggesting women are somehow inferior to men and therefore deserve to be treated differently?
BTW I think you will find women are very critical of other women, more so than men are. If women don't have the right accoutrements, women can really be bitchy about it...
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TISS
what is wrong with it? who says we should only judge a person based on their deeds or actions? its hardly sexist to make a comment about women's legs. at what point is the article suggesting women are somehow inferior to men and therefore deserve to be treated differently?
BTW I think you will find women are very critical of other women, more so than men are. If women don't have the right accoutrements, women can really be bitchy about it...
Yeah, I suppose I'm over reacting, after all there's always similar type stories appearing when two male political leaders are photographed together.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TISS
what is wrong with it? who says we should only judge a person based on their deeds or actions? its hardly sexist to make a comment about women's legs. at what point is the article suggesting women are somehow inferior to men and therefore deserve to be treated differently?
BTW I think you will find women are very critical of other women, more so than men are. If women don't have the right accoutrements, women can really be bitchy about it...
Seriously?
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
Yeah, I suppose I'm over reacting, after all there's always similar type stories appearing when two male political leaders are photographed together.
Read less crap news then?
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I was out shopping this morning and saw the front page of the Daily Mail. People like me who believe there is a valid point behind political correctness when it's not taken too far are an endangered species these days (or it sometimes feels like that), so, when I saw this story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39416554
I did think "don't overreact, it's probably not as bad as you think it is - the story was written by a woman (Michael Gove's wife I believe) after all".
So, I'm so glad that it's now getting a barage of criticism from some sources that would hardly be called bastions of political correctness - I suppose that the Mail are getting the attention they want, but I think this might turn out to be a case where the adage about any publicity being good publicity is proved wrong.
No this does venture into seriously bad taste....
I can't believe a woman would marry Michael Gove.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blue in the Face
No this does venture into seriously bad taste....
I can't believe a woman would marry Michael Gove.
Sarah Vine is a total minger though.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
You raise a serious point Bob, and getting back to the article I think Nicola just edged it, although Theresa does have foxy eyes. In saying that, I just want to make it clear that I wouldn't be up for anything more than a quick glance. Keep up the good work Bob :thumbup:
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I was out shopping this morning and saw the front page of the Daily Mail. People like me who believe there is a valid point behind political correctness when it's not taken too far are an endangered species these days (or it sometimes feels like that), so, when I saw this story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39416554
I did think "don't overreact, it's probably not as bad as you think it is - the story was written by a woman (David Gove's wife I believe) after all".
So, I'm so glad that it's now getting a barage of criticism from some sources that would hardly be called bastions of political correctness - I suppose that the Mail are getting the attention they want, but I think this might turn out to be a case where the adage about any publicity being good publicity is proved wrong.
On that BBC page you linked there's a mock-up of what it would be like if it were male politicians in place of the ladies and really, it doesn't look out of place and nobody would bat an eye at it.
This isn't sexism and the most offensive thing about it is the fact they considered it front-page-worthy.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jon1959
Seriously?
Why not? Explain the sexism? The article was written by a woman for women. Or do some of us men assume all articles are written for the male reader only?
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wales-Bales
You raise a serious point Bob, and getting back to the article I think Nicola just edged it, although Theresa does have foxy eyes. In saying that, I just want to make it clear that I wouldn't be up for anything more than a quick glance. Keep up the good work Bob :thumbup:
:hehe:
Of course it's a rag and pretty moronic people actually got to the shop to buy it.
One has to expect though Bob that posting something like this on here was always going to bring a little extra to the table.
I'm just waiting for the "I'd do the pair of them" post
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
Yeah, I suppose I'm over reacting, after all there's always similar type stories appearing when two male political leaders are photographed together.
Can you explain the sexism please? Your response is wanting in that area.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacAdder
:hehe:
Of course it's a rag and pretty moronic people actually got to the shop to buy it.
One has to expect though Bob that posting something like this on here was always going to bring a little extra to the table.
I'm just waiting for the "I'd do the pair of them" post
Together for double bubble.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacAdder
I'm just waiting for the "I'd do the pair of them" post
I wouldn't go anywhere near that Theresa May abomination of a human. The prospect of a 3 way fumble with Nicola and our Leanne though, that'd be another story.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
I think I'd rather dig up Thatcher than have a go at May.
I'd probably get more warmth.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Even more amazing is some people, including on here, think there's nothing wrong with it and probably think it's worth putting on a front page.
Anyone thinking that comparing two sets of legs on the front page of a newspaper is fine and more newsworthy than anything else isn't worth debating with.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
But what stands out here are the legs – and the vast expanse on show. There is no doubt that both women consider their pins to be the finest weapon in their physical arsenal. Consequently, both have been unsheathed.
May’s famously long extremities are demurely arranged in her customary finishing-school stance – knees tightly together, calves at a flattering diagonal, feet neatly aligned. It’s a studied pose that reminds us that for all her confidence, she is ever the vicar’s daughter, always respectful and anxious not to put a foot wrong.
Sturgeon’s shorter but undeniably more shapely shanks are altogether more flirty, tantalisingly crossed, with the dominant leg pointing towards her audience.
Sturgeon’s shorter but undeniably more shapely shanks are altogether more flirty, tantalisingly crossed, with the dominant leg pointing towards her audience +6
Sturgeon’s shorter but undeniably more shapely shanks are altogether more flirty, tantalisingly crossed, with the dominant leg pointing towards her audience
It’s a direct attempt at seduction: her stiletto is not quite dangling off her foot, but it could be. ‘Come, succumb to my revolutionary allure,’ she seems to be saying. ‘You know you want to.’
The article doesn't get any better tbh.
As a society we have made a huge amount of progress with regards to equality of the sexes from a legal point of view, by there are still areas where people's attitudes towards men or women are very much not equal, myself included at times, and that's a much harder thing to change. But i think it will with time.
Women are far more judged for their appearance than men. Especially by other women. In my work the males are predominantly scruffy engineers and if they turn up looking like a hobo then people just seem to treat them like an eccentric. The women are mostly immaculately turned out and the ones who aren't don't seem to progress as far in their careers.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
the other bob wilson
I was out shopping this morning and saw the front page of the Daily Mail. People like me who believe there is a valid point behind political correctness when it's not taken too far are an endangered species these days (or it sometimes feels like that), so, when I saw this story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39416554
I did think "don't overreact, it's probably not as bad as you think it is - the story was written by a woman (David Gove's wife I believe) after all".
So, I'm so glad that it's now getting a barage of criticism from some sources that would hardly be called bastions of political correctness - I suppose that the Mail are getting the attention they want, but I think this might turn out to be a case where the adage about any publicity being good publicity is proved wrong.
You're getting worked up about nothing,along with everybody else.
Don't worry the PC brigade will have women covered head to toe before long so as not to offend
-
2 Attachment(s)
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Joe Gillis
You're getting worked up about nothing,along with everybody else.
Don't worry the PC brigade will have women covered head to toe before long so as not to offend
Which is it, then?
Attachment 1377
Attachment 1378
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
What?
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Eric the Half a Bee
Even more amazing is some people, including on here, think there's nothing wrong with it and probably think it's worth putting on a front page.
Anyone thinking that comparing two sets of legs on the front page of a newspaper is fine and more newsworthy than anything else isn't worth debating with.
Has anyone said nonsense such as this should be on the front page?
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rjk
The article doesn't get any better tbh.
As a society we have made a huge amount of progress with regards to equality of the sexes from a legal point of view, by there are still areas where people's attitudes towards men or women are very much not equal, myself included at times, and that's a much harder thing to change. But i think it will with time.
Women are far more judged for their appearance than men. Especially by other women. In my work the males are predominantly scruffy engineers and if they turn up looking like a hobo then people just seem to treat them like an eccentric. The women are mostly immaculately turned out and the ones who aren't don't seem to progress as far in their careers.
Ever seen an article concerning a bare chested Putin and the stereotypical Russian male that he personifies...
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
A bunch of fat ugly old white men in ccmb trying to say wha women find demeaning and that they're the worst for it, quel surprise!
It's definitely sexist ffs, read the article for a start. Trying to make something about 2 of the most powerful people in the country all about their looks.
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Croesy Blue
A bunch of fat ugly old white men in ccmb trying to say wha women find demeaning and that they're the worst for it, quel surprise!
It's definitely sexist ffs, read the article for a start. Trying to make something about 2 of the most powerful people in the country all about their looks.
If they weren't powerful, would it be sexist?
-
Re: Daily Mail surpasses itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Croesy Blue
A bunch of fat ugly old white men in ccmb trying to say wha women find demeaning and that they're the worst for it, quel surprise!
It's definitely sexist ffs, read the article for a start. Trying to make something about 2 of the most powerful people in the country all about their looks.
Racist, sexist, ageist.
Reported.