I really shouldn't be baited by their blatant editorial trolling, but the latest M&S campaign piece had me fuming. Oh no, 'topless' pop stars and 'foul-mouthed' artists chosen as models :eek:. Shock horror!! It's the treatment of Emin that really peed me off. I'm not that much of a fan of her work, but as a model I thought she was interesting choice. Like many of my older female friends she's got a great figure, and her face, while not conventionally beautiful, definitely has character.
but I bet they were betting on all the nasty comments from readers...
* I think his wife looks lovely by the way
I've read comments on the Daily Mail site and nearly all of them are positive about Peirce's wife, and quite rightly too, she may not be a size 8 but as you say she looks fine, a woman doesn't have to skinny to be a wonderful wife and mother.
I've read comments on the Daily Mail site and nearly all of them are positive about Peirce's wife, and quite rightly too, she may not be a size 8 but as you say she looks fine, a woman doesn't have to skinny to be a wonderful wife and mother.
Well to be fair she is quite fat nowadays. She'd look a lot better if she lost weight. That goes for anyone.
but I bet they were betting on all the nasty comments from readers...
* I think his wife looks lovely by the way
It's entirely obvious from the way they positioned her in the link picture that they want the main focus to be on her weight when the reader clicks onto the article. I'm just surprised they haven't managed to shoehorn in a picture of them together when she was slimmer. More and more, the DM have started the reverse psychology of either not commenting on larger female figures, or making positive comments about them (see this one as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2396904/Girls-season-teaser-trailer-stills-released--Lena-Dunham-shows-bikini-body.html)
They do this because they know that commenters on the Femail section will inevitably always argue with the DM stance. So if they post a hate piece on a celebrity, they'll get people defending that celebrity. And if they publish what's perceived to be a complimentary piece, they'll get people criticising that celebrity. So many comments on there are from people addressing some sort of mythical DM God (like this one for example, from the Lena Dunham article: '"Show off: Lena Dunham flaunts her fabulous figure in the new teaser trailer for the new season of Girls" Fabulous?! Really DM? Fabulous?!') People just don't get that they're being trolled, hardcore, on there. The comments are why people keep going back to the DM, much more so than the articles themselves, and the DM seem determined to show that its readers are more hateful than anything the paper is capable of coming up with.
Well to be fair she is quite fat nowadays. She'd look a lot better if she lost weight. That goes for anyone.
Ouch! To whom would she look better? Perhaps her husband likes her just the way she is, being skinny doesn't always mean looking better, women who diet hard, especialy if they're more mature, can look older than their years, the lack of body fat fat can make them look hagard and pinched.
Ouch! To whom would she look better? Perhaps her husband likes her just the way she is, being skinny doesn't always mean looking better, women who diet hard, especialy if they're more mature, can look older than their years, the lack of body fat fat can make them look hagard and pinched.
Have you ever heard anyone say "wow, she/he would look so much better if they were fat"? No. People just look better when they're slim/average build. Clothes look better on them, they look healthier etc. I don't think that's being harsh, it's just a fact.
Well to be fair she is quite fat nowadays. She'd look a lot better if she lost weight. That goes for anyone.
No it wouldn't be fair to say anything. I think she's fat but then i do not think i have the right to judge her or that it matters.The Daily Mail is clearly baiting with that pic. They do it all the time.
They must think we are stupid or something.
Well but they are also quite direct if it suits them, If any proof is need how the Daily Mail hates women, we just have to read Liz Jones articles dissecting Kate Moss's looks. Absolutely revolving.
It's entirely obvious from the way they positioned her in the link picture that they want the main focus to be on her weight when the reader clicks onto the article. I'm just surprised they haven't managed to shoehorn in a picture of them together when she was slimmer. More and more, the DM have started the reverse psychology of either not commenting on larger female figures, or making positive comments about them (see this one as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2396904/Girls-season-teaser-trailer-stills-released--Lena-Dunham-shows-bikini-body.html)
They do this because they know that commenters on the Femail section will inevitably always argue with the DM stance. So if they post a hate piece on a celebrity, they'll get people defending that celebrity. And if they publish what's perceived to be a complimentary piece, they'll get people criticising that celebrity. So many comments on there are from people addressing some sort of mythical DM God (like this one for example, from the Lena Dunham article: '"Show off: Lena Dunham flaunts her fabulous figure in the new teaser trailer for the new season of Girls" Fabulous?! Really DM? Fabulous?!') People just don't get that they're being trolled, hardcore, on there. The comments are why people keep going back to the DM, much more so than the articles themselves, and the DM seem determined to show that its readers are more hateful than anything the paper is capable of coming up with.
I agree is terrible.
They are professional trolls, it like when when they had an article about virgins and the headline went
"Happy to be virgins: Successful, attractive and popular...meet the new breed of women in their prime who have NEVER had sex".
Have you ever heard anyone say "wow, she/he would look so much better if they were fat"? No. People just look better when they're slim/average build. Clothes look better on them, they look healthier etc. I don't think that's being harsh, it's just a fact.
Yes, sad but true; being slimmer is more aesthetically pleasing. (There are exceptions of course but I'm speaking in general terms).
No it wouldn't be fair to say anything. I think she's fat but then i do not think i have the right to judge her or that it matters.The Daily Mail is clearly baiting with that pic. They do it all the time.
They must think we are stupid or something.
Well but they are also quite direct if it suits them, If any proof is need how the Daily Mail hates women, we just have to read Liz Jones articles dissecting Kate Moss's looks. Absolutely revolving.
I hate the DM, honestly, I do - but I don't see how they're baiting with that pic. She is in her swimsuit and it's a picture of her that isn't photoshopped. I really don't see the baiting in this instance.
Yes, sad but true; being slimmer is more aesthetically pleasing. (There are exceptions of course but I'm speaking in general terms).
I hate the DM, honestly, I do - but I don't see how they're baiting with that pic. She is in her swimsuit and it's a picture of her that isn't photoshopped. I really don't see the baiting in this instance.
I was wondering if the DM wasn't up to the same sort of nasty thing as when they publish pictures of Hugh Jackman and his wife.
I think that what they WANT us to think is "Good grief, what is Wolverine/James Bond doing with HER" - when in reality most of us can see past it.
Have you ever heard anyone say "wow, she/he would look so much better if they were fat"? No. People just look better when they're slim/average build. Clothes look better on them, they look healthier etc. I don't think that's being harsh, it's just a fact.
And I'd look much better if my hair was just a bit more glossy, my teeth just a bit more white and my skin just a bit more flawless but life isn't a magazine shoot, I was stood behind a really slim woman at the ATM the other day and trust me, she looked awful, no backside to speak off, flat as an ironing board and no waist or hips what so ever. I supose if Peirce likes his wife just as she is then that's all that matters really.
I was wondering if the DM wasn't up to the same sort of nasty thing as when they publish pictures of Hugh Jackman and his wife.
I think that what they WANT us to think is "Good grief, what is Wolverine/James Bond doing with HER" - when in reality most of us can see past it.
But isn't that just us putting our own prejudices onto the issue? I see what you're saying and the DM is a totally hateful rag - but in this instance I don't see them baiting.
She looks happy and Pierce obviously adores her so who is anyone else to judge?
But isn't that just us putting our own prejudices onto the issue? I see what you're saying and the DM is a totally hateful rag - but in this instance I don't see them baiting.
She looks happy and Pierce obviously adores her so who is anyone else to judge?
Oh completely - I wouldn't imagine that any of us would want our holiday photos plastered all over the DM to be bitched about and dissected by a load of strangers.
Personally I think she looks fine - but then she's always been extremely pretty.
I didn't make my previous point very well - what I meant was that there is a massive difference between what we see - an attractive woman who is clearly very confident with how she looks (and imo she should be) on holiday with her husband, and what the DM WANTS us to see - and in this case it appears that because the woman in question is not a botoxed, silicon-enhanced stick insect the DM is expecting its readers to reel back in horror at the mere sight of her, whereas in reality most people think she looks lovely.
Oh completely - I wouldn't imagine that any of us would want our holiday photos plastered all over the DM to be bitched about and dissected by a load of strangers.
Personally I think she looks fine - but then she's always been extremely pretty.
I didn't make my previous point very well - what I meant was that there is a massive difference between what we see - an attractive woman who is clearly very confident with how she looks (and imo she should be) on holiday with her husband, and what the DM WANTS us to see - and in this case it appears that because the woman in question is not a botoxed, silicon-enhanced stick insect the DM is expecting its readers to reel back in horror at the mere sight of her, whereas in reality most people think she looks lovely.
You made it perfectly well, I agree with you totally. This is a paper that thinks Kim Kardashian's camel toe is newsworthy so I guess we should take it all with a massive pinch of salt.
There's an article about Lena Dunham from Girls a bit further down - she is the epitome of 'normal average' looking woman and the comments are lambasting her for being obese:rolleyes::rolleyes:
No it wouldn't be fair to say anything. I think she's fat but then i do not think i have the right to judge her or that it matters.The Daily Mail is clearly baiting with that pic. They do it all the time.
They must think we are stupid or something.
Well but they are also quite direct if it suits them, If any proof is need how the Daily Mail hates women, we just have to read Liz Jones articles dissecting Kate Moss's looks. Absolutely revolving.
Saying someone's fat isn't judging them though, is it? It's just an observation. But you're right about the Mail.
I didn't make my previous point very well - what I meant was that there is a massive difference between what we see - an attractive woman who is clearly very confident with how she looks (and imo she should be) on holiday with her husband, and what the DM WANTS us to see - and in this case it appears that because the woman in question is not a botoxed, silicon-enhanced stick insect the DM is expecting its readers to reel back in horror at the mere sight of her, whereas in reality most people think she looks lovely.
^ BIB - that exactly describes their MO, a faux 'Who? Us?' innocent front failing to disguise the nasty intent.
I love when that happens on the DM, when they troll-post, as with those 'loaded' pics of Pierce and Keely, and it backfires and there's an outpouring of support for the target in the comments. :cool:
It's entirely obvious from the way they positioned her in the link picture that they want the main focus to be on her weight when the reader clicks onto the article. I'm just surprised they haven't managed to shoehorn in a picture of them together when she was slimmer. More and more, the DM have started the reverse psychology of either not commenting on larger female figures, or making positive comments about them (see this one as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2396904/Girls-season-teaser-trailer-stills-released--Lena-Dunham-shows-bikini-body.html)
They do this because they know that commenters on the Femail section will inevitably always argue with the DM stance. So if they post a hate piece on a celebrity, they'll get people defending that celebrity. And if they publish what's perceived to be a complimentary piece, they'll get people criticising that celebrity. So many comments on there are from people addressing some sort of mythical DM God (like this one for example, from the Lena Dunham article: '"Show off: Lena Dunham flaunts her fabulous figure in the new teaser trailer for the new season of Girls" Fabulous?! Really DM? Fabulous?!') People just don't get that they're being trolled, hardcore, on there. The comments are why people keep going back to the DM, much more so than the articles themselves, and the DM seem determined to show that its readers are more hateful than anything the paper is capable of coming up with.
Considering the right hand third of their website is either such and such a woman has nice tits or such and such has got old/fat, yeah they hate, demeane and objectify women.
Yes, they seem to be getting as bad as the scummy S*n for that.
Of course the Mail are anti-women, but they know their 'femail' readers are anti-women too.
I read 'femail' from time to time and genuinely enjoy their beauty tips in there...... and I am very, very pro my own sex. I'm a feminist and not ashamed to admit it, even though it seems to be considered a dirty word now in some places.
Some women, unfortunately, enjoy reading, and writing, bile about other women. It makes them feel better about their own-shortcomings. Misogyny is everywhere; from both men AND women. Liz Jones has apparently written a piece about Kate Moss recently, pulling apart just about every bit of her body. Nice.
but I bet they were betting on all the nasty comments from readers...
* I think his wife looks lovely by the way
Why were you surprised that they didn't make any comments about her? Were you surprised because the first thing you thought was that she is overweight? I really don't believe your first thought was that she looks lovely in that photo. I know that you are saying they put the picture there for the readers to ridicule her and I certainly agree that was one reason and it is nasty. Another reason was because they knew people would jump in and say she looks great even though she does not. All the positive comments are a pile of rubbish, no way do a load of people think she looks lovely. It would have been better to ignore the article altogether than to lie in the comments. It just proved that the DM's bait worked.
The ones who make the nice comments often get red arrowed, the bitchy comments get green arrows because I have seen a trend. If the article is about someone who is known for being subjected to controversy, the above is likely to happen.
The Daily Mail features at least one gender-specific story a day, in the hope that the sexists among its readership will come out in force...and of course these people oblige. I swear these stories must be linked on MRA sites or something, because every man who is bitter at the entire female population for being dumped by an ex-girlfriend comes out to comment on these stories, and to blame women/feminism for every problem in the world. The same names appear again and again (w@nkers).
I used to get annoyed, but now I just think they, and the DM, are so pathetic and sad it is quite amusing.
Comments
F'ing Mail :mad:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2396735/Pierce-Brosnan-takes-dip-sea-cool-romantic-beach-day-wife-Keely-Shaye-Smith-Hawaii.html
but I bet they were betting on all the nasty comments from readers...
* I think his wife looks lovely by the way
Well to be fair she is quite fat nowadays. She'd look a lot better if she lost weight. That goes for anyone.
It's entirely obvious from the way they positioned her in the link picture that they want the main focus to be on her weight when the reader clicks onto the article. I'm just surprised they haven't managed to shoehorn in a picture of them together when she was slimmer. More and more, the DM have started the reverse psychology of either not commenting on larger female figures, or making positive comments about them (see this one as an example: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2396904/Girls-season-teaser-trailer-stills-released--Lena-Dunham-shows-bikini-body.html)
They do this because they know that commenters on the Femail section will inevitably always argue with the DM stance. So if they post a hate piece on a celebrity, they'll get people defending that celebrity. And if they publish what's perceived to be a complimentary piece, they'll get people criticising that celebrity. So many comments on there are from people addressing some sort of mythical DM God (like this one for example, from the Lena Dunham article: '"Show off: Lena Dunham flaunts her fabulous figure in the new teaser trailer for the new season of Girls" Fabulous?! Really DM? Fabulous?!') People just don't get that they're being trolled, hardcore, on there. The comments are why people keep going back to the DM, much more so than the articles themselves, and the DM seem determined to show that its readers are more hateful than anything the paper is capable of coming up with.
Ouch! To whom would she look better? Perhaps her husband likes her just the way she is, being skinny doesn't always mean looking better, women who diet hard, especialy if they're more mature, can look older than their years, the lack of body fat fat can make them look hagard and pinched.
Have you ever heard anyone say "wow, she/he would look so much better if they were fat"? No. People just look better when they're slim/average build. Clothes look better on them, they look healthier etc. I don't think that's being harsh, it's just a fact.
No it wouldn't be fair to say anything. I think she's fat but then i do not think i have the right to judge her or that it matters.The Daily Mail is clearly baiting with that pic. They do it all the time.
They must think we are stupid or something.
Well but they are also quite direct if it suits them, If any proof is need how the Daily Mail hates women, we just have to read Liz Jones articles dissecting Kate Moss's looks. Absolutely revolving.
I agree is terrible.
They are professional trolls, it like when when they had an article about virgins and the headline went
"Happy to be virgins: Successful, attractive and popular...meet the new breed of women in their prime who have NEVER had sex".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2108377/Meet-new-breed-women-prime-happy-virgins.html
Yes, sad but true; being slimmer is more aesthetically pleasing. (There are exceptions of course but I'm speaking in general terms).
I hate the DM, honestly, I do - but I don't see how they're baiting with that pic. She is in her swimsuit and it's a picture of her that isn't photoshopped. I really don't see the baiting in this instance.
I was wondering if the DM wasn't up to the same sort of nasty thing as when they publish pictures of Hugh Jackman and his wife.
I think that what they WANT us to think is "Good grief, what is Wolverine/James Bond doing with HER" - when in reality most of us can see past it.
And I'd look much better if my hair was just a bit more glossy, my teeth just a bit more white and my skin just a bit more flawless but life isn't a magazine shoot, I was stood behind a really slim woman at the ATM the other day and trust me, she looked awful, no backside to speak off, flat as an ironing board and no waist or hips what so ever. I supose if Peirce likes his wife just as she is then that's all that matters really.
But isn't that just us putting our own prejudices onto the issue? I see what you're saying and the DM is a totally hateful rag - but in this instance I don't see them baiting.
She looks happy and Pierce obviously adores her so who is anyone else to judge?
Oh completely - I wouldn't imagine that any of us would want our holiday photos plastered all over the DM to be bitched about and dissected by a load of strangers.
Personally I think she looks fine - but then she's always been extremely pretty.
I didn't make my previous point very well - what I meant was that there is a massive difference between what we see - an attractive woman who is clearly very confident with how she looks (and imo she should be) on holiday with her husband, and what the DM WANTS us to see - and in this case it appears that because the woman in question is not a botoxed, silicon-enhanced stick insect the DM is expecting its readers to reel back in horror at the mere sight of her, whereas in reality most people think she looks lovely.
You made it perfectly well, I agree with you totally. This is a paper that thinks Kim Kardashian's camel toe is newsworthy so I guess we should take it all with a massive pinch of salt.
There's an article about Lena Dunham from Girls a bit further down - she is the epitome of 'normal average' looking woman and the comments are lambasting her for being obese:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Saying someone's fat isn't judging them though, is it? It's just an observation. But you're right about the Mail.
^ BIB - that exactly describes their MO, a faux 'Who? Us?' innocent front failing to disguise the nasty intent.
I love when that happens on the DM, when they troll-post, as with those 'loaded' pics of Pierce and Keely, and it backfires and there's an outpouring of support for the target in the comments. :cool:
Yup. Agreed.
Yes, they seem to be getting as bad as the scummy S*n for that.
I read 'femail' from time to time and genuinely enjoy their beauty tips in there...... and I am very, very pro my own sex. I'm a feminist and not ashamed to admit it, even though it seems to be considered a dirty word now in some places.
Some women, unfortunately, enjoy reading, and writing, bile about other women. It makes them feel better about their own-shortcomings. Misogyny is everywhere; from both men AND women. Liz Jones has apparently written a piece about Kate Moss recently, pulling apart just about every bit of her body. Nice.
Then there's the S*n, Star, 'Sport' there for any pr*ck to masturbate over. The British press in general is misogynistic and a flaming disgrace.
Why were you surprised that they didn't make any comments about her? Were you surprised because the first thing you thought was that she is overweight? I really don't believe your first thought was that she looks lovely in that photo. I know that you are saying they put the picture there for the readers to ridicule her and I certainly agree that was one reason and it is nasty. Another reason was because they knew people would jump in and say she looks great even though she does not. All the positive comments are a pile of rubbish, no way do a load of people think she looks lovely. It would have been better to ignore the article altogether than to lie in the comments. It just proved that the DM's bait worked.
I used to get annoyed, but now I just think they, and the DM, are so pathetic and sad it is quite amusing.