15 June, 2010

The Daily Misogyny

I fucking hate the Mail. I would happily pulp all known copies of the Mail and turn them into papier-mache sculptures of Germaine Greer and Emmeline Pankhurst sticking their middle fingers up at Piers Hernu (in fact, I might do that anyway)
In this case, I think the swear word is justified; I know they say that profanity is the last resort of the barely literate (or something) but bollocks, sometimes a well-time f bomb is the most effective way of emphasising just how godawful something is.

‘Non-stories’, usually involving celebrities appearing in various states of undress seem to be on the increase recently, pushing their body-fascist agenda.

Skim across the Mail’s website today (I did it, so you don’t have to) and the following articles appear at various points on the Sidebar of Doom:

Sarah Jessica Parker has ’sinewy, bony legs’
Elle McPherson ‘has lumpy foot’
Natalie Imbruglia ‘wears same dress twice’
Estelle ‘has new teeth, looks better’

It’s fairly standard dross and typifies the kind of judgemental non-story the Mail specialises in. There is no story in these articles; they are not in the least bit newsworthy. Just a couple of pictures of an invariably female celebrity not conforming to the rigorous aesthetic standards the paper sets. However small their deviation (and really, who gives a shiny shite whether Natalie Imbruglia wears a dress twice) it’s written as if the celeb has left the house in, say, full Nazi regalia (they'd probably quite like that) or perhaps with a strap-on and nipple clamps.

The really unpleasant thing about it all, though, is that it encourages us to pass judgement on anyone who is in any way different – be it because they dress in an unorthodox way (or perhaps dare to wear clothes they spent good money on more than once) or because parts of their body are ‘imperfect’. It is symptomatic of a society obsessed with criticising women who have not spent every hour of their life moulding themselves to fit the current image of perfection. So Sarah Jessica Parker has muscly legs and is a bit on the slender side. Who out there thinks this is significant? Who out there cares?

It might be fluff, but it’s also becoming the norm; where once we might have brushed these things aside as just a symbol of the incredible diversity of the human body, or a celebration of freedom of choice, they are now held up as fodder for mockery. Not only is it extraordinarily rude, it’s pretty depressing too.


  1. I'm constantly watching people laugh at snarky websites, like sarahjesicaparkerlookslikeahorse.com, or something like that. I mean, seriously. How pathetic must your life be, if you are going to dedicate it to finding pictures of SJP and horses to compare them to? What does your life gain by making a point of insulting others?

    And a lumpy foot? Seriously? Did you really have to stretch that far to insult someone?

    Ugh, these things are what make me want to yell at kids to get off my lawn more and more.

  2. I question whether the Daily Fail is capable of printing any news whatsoever. Half of it seems to be regurgitated 'human interest' crap and the other half seems to be heavily biased editorials.

  3. The other thing the Mail do is post endless articles slagging off female celebs for posing in their undies or appearing semi-naked in a film. But they always include lots and lots and LOTS of photos of the scantily clad celeb (presumably to show how truly disgusting and immoral those photos are and not because they are basically just a downmarket tabloid, but won't admit it).

    What depresses me is the amount of women I know who love these articles about celebs looking rough. They claim it makes them feel better about themselves. I truly don't understand this. If a famous beauty is considered hideous because she hasn't got make-up on or has put on 3 pounds then what hope is there for us ordinary women. We must be considered so hideous that we shouldn't leave the house!


Trolling, spamming, racism, sexism, fascism and bigotry are not welcome. Anyone engaging gratuitously in any and all of the above may be removed and ridiculed, and not necessarily in that order.