[Leicester_Hunk]

Liz Jones, that Kate Mulvey woman and now this!


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...fair-game.html

[21stCenturyBoy]

Have you seen Shona Sibary?

She looks like a microwaved Garden Gnome.

[icefall]

Because they dont approve any normal womans articles!!

[j4Rose]

They're clearly told to write about ludicrous, fabricated situations in order to get attention. I feel sorry for her husband though.

[Sandytop]

Because the Mail is scum that feeds its readers the non-stop diet of provocative articles they expect. It's outrage porn for now they daren't target celebs or politicians so one of their own has to take a turn in the barrel.

[Coma_White]

But the DM make up for all the bizarre female writers by publishing the voice of reason, Samantha Brick.

[Starry Eyed]

It's because the Daily Mail's entire newspaper/website output is one big trolling operation. Simple.

[broadshoulder]

The Daily Mail started for catering for female readers about 1988. Tis is an extension of this.

It preys on their paranoia about other women.

[dancingfan]

Originally Posted by broadshoulder

The Daily Mail started for catering for female readers about 1988. Tis is an extension of this.

It preys on their paranoia about other women.

it hates women too

[karapote monkey]

I clicked the link and just thought but why? His face is all kind of wibbly. It's like the features are not inline and who are these women launching themselves at her husband? Old ones?

[dorahall]

Originally Posted by karapote monkey

I clicked the link and just thought but why? His face is all kind of wibbly. It's like the features are not inline and who are these women launching themselves at her husband? Old ones?

Fictitious ones.

Especially the one who hoovered in a nightie and stilleto boots, I think she came from a 70's porn film.

[bob_fossil]

Originally Posted by Starry Eyed

It's because the Daily Mail's entire newspaper/website output is one big trolling operation. Simple.

Exactly!!

[i4u]

Lisa Brinkworth another female prepared to sacrifice herself at the alter of Paul Dacre.

She's got more wrinkles than Nora Batties stockings and if she got 5p for every bag she's carrying under her eyes she could afford to leave her husband.

Clearly she has insecurity issues due to her age, what woman is going to fancy a bloke in a bright pink shirt and his hand on his hip?

Is that long skirt hiding chunky thighs and knobbly knees?

Maybe she's the reason Ian Hyland is quitting The Mail, fancy going into the office and having to put up looking at someone that wrinkly hasn't she heard of botox?

Apart from the above I'm sure she's a warm loving person, and that's why as a woman she works for The Mail.

[i4u]

Originally Posted by Starry Eyed

It's because the Daily Mail's entire newspaper/website output is one big trolling operation. Simple.

It's a click joint.

[Saltydog1955]

What about Samantha Brick ,she of the beauty we're all supposed to be so jealous of and the husband who looks like a second rate walrus?

[paperplanes_]

Because the Daily Mail has an image of being full of total crap to maintain, they aren't going to employ sensible people now are they?

[AdelaideGirl]

It's certainly very odd - they take a real idea like the difficulty of dating for the over 40's or why happily married men are attractive to some single women. Then distort and exaggerate before finally hiring a couple of unconvincing actors to illustrate it. Very strange.

[Bungitin]

Paul Dacre has them locked up somewhere.

Women writing anti female stuff academy.

[Saltydog1955]

The character Jim Hacker in Yes Minister summed it up pretty well -

The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country. The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. The Financial Times is read by people who own the country. The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is.

[bookaddict]

I don't think the Daily Mail is a paper for women - it HATES woman, and almost every article is either slagging a woman off for putting on weight (it only takes a pound or two, or an unflattering outfit for a bitchy article to appear), or is clearly designed to make women feel insecure and paranoid. More like a paper for bigoted misogynists.

[wilehelmas]

Originally Posted by Starry Eyed

It's because the Daily Mail's entire newspaper/website output is one big trolling operation. Simple.

These words should be enshrined in stone.

[Jethryk]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

The character Jim Hacker in Yes Minister summed it up pretty well -

And what about the people who read The Sun?

[wilehelmas]

Originally Posted by bookaddict

I don't think the Daily Mail is a paper for women - it HATES woman, and almost every article is either slagging a woman off for putting on weight (it only takes a pound or two, or an unflattering outfit for a bitchy article to appear), or is clearly designed to make women feel insecure and paranoid. More like a paper for bigoted misogynists.

The thing is, the Daily Mail actually capitalises on the fact that people go and view it in a love-hate relationship. The anti-everything topics are as big a draw because it pulls in as many people who will fight against it as those that will agree. It's all a big con for ratings/hits. They don't care whether you agree or disagree, as long as it stirs up a hornet's nest and gets visitors.

One week they, unbelievably, had an article slamming women who they felt figured they were too 'classy' or posh to have babies. Que outrage from the Mail in a kind of: Who do these hoes think they are, not procreating like GOD intended!

[wilehelmas]

Originally Posted by Jethryk

And what about the people who read The Sun?

They read The Sun?

I thought they just looked at the pictures.

[thefairydandy]

Originally Posted by AdelaideGirl

It's certainly very odd - they take a real idea like the difficulty of dating for the over 40's or why happily married men are attractive to some single women. Then distort and exaggerate before finally hiring a couple of unconvincing actors to illustrate it. Very strange.

The whole thing strikes me as reasonably realistic actually. Some young women (with stereotypical daddy issues in tow) DO throw themselves at married fathers. If it were just about being attractive then ugly married men would never stray.

An older, mature father who is financially solvent wouldn't need amazing looks to appeal to an insecure young woman who wants a father figure. They just don't realise that going for (and gettting) a 'great dad' just perpetuates the misery their own fathers wreaked upon them. It may be stereotypical, but it's one I happen to believe in.