Can we have a Daily Mail apprection thread after this article?!

[55balloons]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11995903/The-new-face-extremism-unmasked-Republicans-watching-trantifa.html

Well done Reem Alaselem. Now the UN are on board.

Some people need to comment on a thread just to piss all over it.

If I remember correctly, didn’t a poster on this thread told us all how much more egregious it was that Cubana Angel appeared in the reception area of WiSpa in her robe?

That it was so much more egregious than the male with a semi erection getting into a spa a metre away and in direct line of sight from a nine year old girl?

I expect Cubana Angel was bigoted and prejudiced and had been radicalised by reading right wing publications to the extent that she had lost her moral gyroscope (not like @BodgerLovesMashedPotato who is definitely NOT part of the lumpen proletariat and can therefore safely read the daily mail while denouncing others who do the same without being a massive hypocrite or getting radicalised)

so that means that when Cubana Angel objects to a grown man showing his dick to a little girl she’s actually in the wrong and the guardian were quite right to denounce her

The Guardian were also right to lie about her and the protests which followed. It was a morally righteous kind of lying, after all.

Yes the guardian are definitely not massively prejudiced

or if they are, it’s the right kind of prejudice that makes everything they do, even if it looks morally repugnant, actually fine

not like the Daily Mail of course

Bodger

Do you see the deep hypocrisy in your post yet?

I suspect all familiar with your posts can see it.

Yes to all your posts above @BernardBlacksMolluscs but wait a minute... you are apparently 'a doofus' so a bit worried that I agree.

N.B doofus is not an insult I've heard for YEARS, outside of 90s frat boy comedies like American Pie,.or Scary Movie etc!

This. It's pathetic it really is.

All of this.

What a shame that @BodgerLovesMashedPotato ’s post was deleted

my preference is never to interrupt someone when they’re making a doofus of themselves, and implying that blameless 80 year old women are bigoted and prejudiced, simply on the basis of the newspaper they read

To be fair, I started with the doofus

I think it nicely describes the level of self important silliness that posters contributions to this thread have embodied

I was at a Women's Place meeting a few years back and if I had a penny for every time someone had said some variant of "Now, I know this is from the Daily Mail but..." then I'd have, probably around 50p. Which isn't a large amount financially but is as an indicator of how people are hung up about being perceived as Right Wing.

I actually am right wing so to me it's a non-issue. I read the Times when I read a paper because it has much more depth and more global focus but I don't look down on Daily Mail readers. Which is what someone does every time they feel compelled to excuse quoting it. That's what everybody was doing at the Women's Place meeting: prefacing their statements with 'I'm not like them. I am better than them'. Lovely people there for the most part, good people, with good aims. But still instilled with this horror of being associated with the right. Or maybe it's just fear - fear that if perceived so their statement will carry less weight or be dismissed and unheard. I can see the latter, it happens. I remember as a kid laughing along with things like the "Daily Mail Headline Generator" where you'd click a button on the website and it would show you a mockup with something like "Illegal Immigrants Gave Princess Diana Aids to Steal Benefits". And I never batted an eye at Student Unions getting the Daily Mail banned from on-campus shops. I'd just received the opinion that Daily Mail was an evil propaganda paper for bigots and accepted that. What is very sinister is that I can't remember from where I ever got that belief or when. It was just something I "knew".

In any case, it's kind of funny how The Guardian is 'our' paper but we disagree with most of the stuff printed in it or at least see major flaws (like the one about Black girls being disproportionately targeted for strip searches which fell apart completely under the most superficial examination); whilst the Daily Mail keeps on coming out with stuff that we do agree with but is 'their' paper.

Nor is it a new thing. The Guardian argued FOR American slavery for the sake of Britain's economy, whilst The Spectator campaigned against American slavery. The Guardian has ever been the mouthpiece of the Establishment. Just the Left Wing mouthpiece. It's far more propaganda than the Daily Mail which like it or not, does actually reflect the views of more typical working British people.

This whole thread reminds me of that conversation between Stella Creasy, MP and a

(accidentally hit submit before finishing my post)

...between Stella Creasy and a young woman who worked in some business analysis field, which culminated in an angry Stella Creasy declaring "Feminism isn't about women, it's about power."

That's your division right there. Those who care about feminism for its own sake and those for whom it's part of a general Left Wing identity and a tool to advance their Leftist cause.

Face facts, the Left is no longer getting the political capital from Feminism it once got. Trans minorities are the new hotness. It's traded you all in for a younger model. (Offensive analogy, yes... but to who?)

They're a hideous, misogynistic little rag which absolutely loathes women and objectifies them at every opportunity. Most of their articles about women suggest their bodies are something to be ogled whilst actively lambasting feminists and feminism - because, you know, the poor men have been 'emasculated'. Working mums, IVF mums, SAHMs, having the temerity to ask for equal work for equal pay, ad nauseam. And they frequently also include articles penned by reformed women, who were once feminists and had the sheer nerve to hold down a job or have children at a time of their own choosing, but are now contrite and have learned the error of their ways. It would be hilarious if it wasn't clear their target readership lap up this material and swallow it hook, line and bait.

Women should be women alright, but only if they adhere to regressive gender stereotypes or exist as titillation for men.

Oddly enough, the MRA/TRA body take exactly the same stance. According to them, and in utter disrespect of our own views on the subject, unless we are trans we are all 'cis gender', indicating we're comfortable with the backdated stereotypes arbitrarily conferred on the basis of our sex. How else would any natal male 'feel like a woman' unless actual women adhere to this BS? Butch women or successful professionals don't fit the mold.

At present this is a fight to the life for women against our wholesale erasure, in language, public space and freedom if not our physical bodies. If the Mail are the only ones willing to shine a light on this issue then fair play - they reach a wide readership and can for once influence the public in a way that actually benefits women who are not up for ceding over our rights to men. It's not exactly as though the Guardian are doing us any favours in that respect.

I'm under no illusions that the Mail are currently waving the flag for women's rights because they hate trans people more than they hate us. At this (urgent) turning point for women's rights, I couldn't honestly say I could care less.

I LOVE the word doofus.

'Doylum' (a Leeds'ism) and 'dunderhead' are also brilliant.

Something about a term of insult beginning with a 'D', you can really get some impetus behind it. Not to mention great alliteration 😂

I was rather astounded by the nastiness of that post. And all because of reading a particular newspaper. One that is widely read and widely available.

However, when Bodger next tries to tell people about how mean we all are, and how we supposedly can only see the 'bad' side of people, I do hope that Bodger remembers their previous posts.

I doubt it though.

IDK, the Mail seem to be doing an excellent job here of equal opportunities objectification:

'Dylan Mulvaney puts on a leggy display'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12191769/Dylan-Mulvaney-puts-leggy-display-black-mini-skirt-Asteroid-City-premiere.html#comments

I’ve always said men can have all that stuff. The beauty contests, the ‘flaunting their curves’ and leggy displays. The uncomfortable underwear and impractical shoes

men can have the whole damn lot. It seems to be what a lot of the role players want anyway

let’s all just be clear that wearing a short skirt doesn’t make you a woman, and then knock yourselves out

I’ve often thought that fashion magazines favour the body structure of people like Dylan , because it has a lot of gay men working in the industry and that is the body type that attracts them.

When you think about it , the female supermodels don’t have the same body fat distribution that the average woman has.
this is why that body shape is unachievable for most women, but relatively easy for a young man to get that body.

I read someone a while back saying something along the lines of 'fashion designers can get on with designing for teenaged boys, which is what they've been doing all along anyway'. I'm misremembering but that was the gist.

It gone in a weird circle, gay men design for a young man’s body shape, women try and fit that shape, men do it better, because they are men. Ergo men are women.

FYA, the readership of the Daily Mail is slightly predisposed more towards being female than male. There have in the past been jokes about how it should be called the Daily FeMail.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/380710/daily-mail-the-mail-on-sunday-monthly-reach-by-demographic-uk/

Just because your post talks a lot about how it's anti-woman, hates women, etc.

despite the fact that being “for women” was not a claim made
There was one at least at the beginning of the thread

I would also like to thank @SerafinasGoose for the term "reformed women" to describe female writers in the Daily Mail.