This Brick person. Has the world (and specifically this bit of it) gone completely barking mad?

As I said on another earlier thread, I'm happy heaping my denigration onto the Daily Mail for this.

So you think that thousands of women are undignified, unitelligent and not very bright. For reacting to a provocative piece designed to make them react in that way, the way that they have been moulded to react by their society.

I think it is astonishing that you are so ready to be so nasty about such a large group of people. Saying on an internet forum "she's not very good looking" or whatever it is they are saying is not akin to punching someone in the face or indulging in other illegal activities. I am surprised at the comparison.

I think your views about lack of dignity should be aimed at the sections of the media who exploit and propogate these pervasive ideas, rather than at women who when poked on a sore spot react in a predictable manner.

Anyway
Read this piece by Tim Dowkling for a cheering up view of the situation.
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/apr/04/samantha-brick-hated-good-looks

She is a grown up. She does not need protecting from those who pay her. She knows what she's doing and perhaps it will help her financial position.

I find this thread [deliberately?] unnecessary, given the intelligent debate on other threads about the Daily Mail stitch-up of its freelance writer and its readership.

Wouldn't it be better if articles weren't published that deliberately inflamed people's insecurities that are encouraged by society from birth?

I find this thread a bit odd and nasty actually.

Well, the same author recently wrote an article about how she flirts for favours. As several commentors pointed out, that's probably what other women dislike about her.

OP do you really think that women reacting as comes naturally makes them undignified and unintelligent?

I also don't like the idea that women on MN reacting as comes naturally to them, at an article which has apparently pushed a lot of buttons, makes them "unintelligent".

The article and the publication have a remit to strongly provoke, they have obviously succeeded with this, if ordinary people react as the paper hopes they would then that is just normal and bogstandard surely?

Is this another "these comments let down the whole of womankind" type idea? Because I think that is unfair.

Of course if someone says the are something they aren't, people will snigger at them. It's human nature! British people don't like people who "blow their own trumpets", most especially if what they are bragging about isn't actually true.

But like I say I haven't read the articles or threads, so probably not qualified to comment.

They write what people read and lots of people have had a lot of fun over it. She writes that she thinks she looks better than we all know she is in terms of looks so it's all very funny. No one is obliged to read it.

Of course she has the freedom of the press to say she is better looking than she is (and yes of course there is a hierarchy of looks for men and women - she has a rather fat ugly older French divorced husband with facial hair so has ended up with someone around the same level of looks as do most people). You get two gorgeous people together, two mediocre, two ugly - you just have to go down a highstreet to see that is so. Sometimes there are exceptions but they are quite rare and usually other factors are involved like man or women is rich etc.

No, they wouldn't have McFluffster. He may have had a few comments here and there, but I doubt it would have blown up to these proportions.

I think if her husband had written a similar article people would have attacked him in the same way tbh.

don't know why i even clicked on this thread as i'm soooooo bored with this crap already, but since it's in FWR i thought it was worth the risk and it was, for this quote from the guardian article:

"More recently I decided to grow a beard, just to blend in with "normal" men. It helps a little, but there are only so many parts of a face a beard can cover. You can't grow hair on soulful, beseeching eyes, for example."

IMO the samantha brick article is a pile of poo, however the reaction to it is testament to the fact that women are still valued, in the main, on their looks. so she has to be shot down in flames because if you were to accept her premise you'd be accepting that she's better than you (if you're a woman). whereas, a man (of equivalent attractiveness) writing the same article wouldn't attract the same level of scorn from other men because that is not how men are valued and so they just wouldn't care as much.

Absolutely shattered atm, so only skim read this, but The Guardian has written about how the Daily Mail has, in effect, thrown Samantha Brick to the wolves May be of interest to some of you.

Sorry, but that Tim Dowling article made me spit my wine (never believed anyone ever actually did that).
'Is it any wonder that Piers Morgan moved to the US?' Arf.

Well I totally agree with your argument OP but you are contributing to the madness somewhat by starting another thread about the subject

I agree with the thread in feminism about this subject - the person who commissioned that article was a fucking genius if his stated aim was to have women gang up on each other and look like pricks. If you sympathise with the woman who wrote the article you are a vain twat, if you slag her off you are a bitchy twat. It's as if the Daily Mail said 'what can we print which will get loads of people frothing on a slow news bank holiday week, and get our online edition read by record breaking amounts of people'.

I read trash sleb crap and comment about it on here all the time, so who am I to talk, but bloody hell the cynicism of this whole thing has made me a bit sick, tbh.

There has been at least one other thread today looking in some depth at the Daily Mail's role in this, and reviling the bile, as it were. It was really interesting.

Widowwadman I love that article!

Why start another thread about it, then?