The shit down the right-hand side of the Mail’s website
Just a quick rant, honestly I won't be long. Work tomorrow, that sort of thing. But reading the Mail's website, as I do quite often, I get struck by the awfulness of its 'Femail' section. It's as if the Mail is saying, there you are darling, hubby's got to look at the important stories about politics and why blacks are bad; you just read some utter braindead flim-flam bullshit about ooh, hasn't she got thin arms, and ooh yes, look at her spraytan. For fuck's sake! Is this what women have come to? Is this what the struggle for equal rights was fought for? Is this it? Utter banal celebrity-obsessed wankery, seemingly written by chimps with crayons? Is this really what women want?
Look at it! Look at it!
Holly raises more eyebrows by covering up her cleavage in a backless gown
TV presenter in 'wears clothes' exclusive shock probe!
At first glance, there appeared to be a cover-up as her black sequinned floor-length gown had a demure high neckline which failed to show even a hint of cleavage. But when the 26-year-old turned her back to the audience, it was a different story - exposing the dress's daring plummeting back.
It swooped so low, it threatened to expose rather more than intended and offered no visible means of support, as Miss Willoughby did not appear to be wearing a bra.
A trained journalist probably wrote that. Someone with a qualification and everything. Who now churns out insipid swill about some fucking woman off the telly and whether she's wearing a bra or not. Honestly. Is this worthy of writing about? This is JUST WHAT WAS ON THE FUCKING TELLY. Oh look, something was on the telly. Oh yes, let's tell people what was on the telly. Isn't it? Mm.
Charlotte Church shows off fiery red hair as she cheers on boyfriend Gavin Henson in rugby match
Yes! I don't know if Newsweek or Time have covered this one in quite as much depth, but yes, I can confirm, having looked at the photographs, that Charlotte Church has indeed dyed her hair. That's this year's Pulitzer sorted out then, isn't it?
Dressed in a green coat that offset her hair colour, she later changed into a black corset when out celebrating in the city that evening.
Although she was spotted last week revealing unsightly dark brown roots, Charlotte appears to have touched them up.
The red hair could be part of a makeover that has seen Charlotte undergo a new fitness regime in an effort to shed her baby weight
Dressed in a green coat she wore because she wanted to wear a fucking green coat, she later wore other clothes. Although last week she hadn't dyed her hair, this week she had. She's had a kid as well, so that's nice for her to go out looking nice, isn't it?
Jesus wept. Reading this shit is like listening to some tabard-clad old witch in the queue in the Co-Op talking about her granddaughter. Seriously, is there anyone in the fucking world who actually cares about this? Is there? Really? Would it make the slightest bit of difference to anyone's life if we didn't know that Charlotte Church dyed her hair red? Would it really matter? To anyone? Does journalism sink any lower than this ill-written shitfest of tedium?
Fake bake: Scouse girls Coleen and Jennifer light up the night with an orange glow
I stand corrected.
No stranger to fake tan, Coleen McLoughlin appeared to have overdone it somewhat with an end result that was more Jaffa Cake than sun-kissed glow, as she attended a launch bash for Liverpool Fashion Week last night.
But Wayne Rooney's fiancée was not the only one boasting a fruit-coloured faux pas - fellow Scouser Jennifer Ellison also brightened up the launch with a similar tangerine hue.
Yes, get this. You won't believe this, but... two women have been spotted wearing fake tan. CAN YOU IMAGINE? And... wait... they both come from the same city! Would you believe that? Would you? Would you? Well, would you? Isn't it exciting? Isn't it amazing? Isn't it unbelievable, impressive, astonishing news? Isn't it? No?
Honestly. On the one hand the Mail is the worst newspaper in the world; on the other, it's the worst newspaper in the world. Don't women feel embarrassed by this sort of shit? The patronising adverts for things like the Observer or Sunday Times colour shitpiece where some idiot voice over says: "And there's a women's bit as well for people WHO LIKE SHOES tee hee hee hee hee!" - yes, women, know your limits. Important news about things? Don't worry about that! We've got SHOES and SPARKLY THINGS and GOSSIP about CELEBRITIES all in BRIGHT COLOURS so you can get your pretty little heads all worked up about it.
When I was younger, I had the impression that women were going to take over the world. In other countries and other cultures, women lead political movements and are at the forefront of change. Why not here? Why do women put up with being patronised and ridiculed by the likes of Femail? I just don't get it.
No related posts.
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on A day with the Daily Mail
- Eddie on Peter Hitchens depresses me. But I won’t kill him.
- Emily on Update
- Angela Webb on This isn’t a flounce
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
February 25th, 2008 - 21:51
A couple of interesting facts about the Mail:
One, the “Femail” editor who’s just been appointed is a man. Considering most think the newspaper most read by women is also the most misogynistic that sounds about right.
Two, the Mail is supposedly the biggest newspaper buyer of paparazzi shots in the world. That’s what fills the Femail pages, and indeed is despite the paper promising never to publish such pictures again after the death of Diana. It broke its solemn oath within a matter of days.
February 26th, 2008 - 00:55
It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that the ‘Femail’ editor is a man. Clearly there were no women journalists in the entire Daily Mail group good enough to run an entire section about women. I’d like to hope that’s because the female reporters are too busy digging out the award-winning news stories.
I see the DM have changed the article on Holly Willoughby’s dress, by the way. Instead of saying ‘raised more than just eyebrows’ it now says ‘raised more eyebrows’. Presumably, they meant it made men’s cocks go hard, and that was considered a bit ripe for the Femail section.
When I used to work for a newspaper, women got statutory minimum maternity pay, while men got very generous paternity pay. I wonder if that’s the case at the Mail?
June 8th, 2010 - 13:58
I feel a little sad when I see women anywhere reading a women’s magazine, but then, they are as alien to me as, I dunno, insects are. I have nothing in common with them.
The new ‘Stylish’ magazine that is the female version of ‘Shortlist’ that they give out free Tuesday-Thursday outside rail stations? SHIT. Full of utter crap and I love saying ‘no’ to it. Shortlist on the other hand, while free and full of pretty things from a male perspective, does actually write some quite funny stuff and is practically the only male orientated magazine that really doesn’t seem to have any sexism in it. I read it cover to cover for the photo captions that have me sniggering out loud every week. Much much more enjoyable than its female counterpart. And it has ladies in the team.