These women are dragging us all back to the dark ages
I’m torn this week between wanting to vent my spleen and not wanting to give the “oxygen of publicity” to the ventees.
Okay, I’ll vent. Remember in the film As Good As It Gets, when a woman asks Jack Nicholson’s character, who’s an author: “How do you write women so well?” and he says: “I think of a man and I take away reason and accountability.”?
Well, in a similar vein, I reckon that when someone creates Daily Mail female journalists, he or she thinks of a human being and takes away the heart and soul.
Now, I’m not a fan of women slagging off other women, which is what I’m objecting to here. So I want to be clear that I’m not slagging these women off BECAUSE they’re women, but because of what they do.
Okay, I’ll take a deep breath and try to be coherent.
This week, doing research for a talk about Women’s Rights, I went online to look up some facts that were a bit fuzzy to me (ie, most of them). Along the way, a headline about Christine Bleakley caught my eye. It was from the aforementioned Daily Mail online.
Now, Christine’s been in the news this week regarding the launch of her new breakfast TV show with Adrian Chiles after their departure from the BBC.
In the Mail, Adrian’s reported as having been frustrated by how things went at the BBC but ready to do business and not going to dwell on it.
Meanwhile, Christine is reported as wearing too much fake tan.
Earlier in the week, the paper did a huge piece featuring photos of Christine recording a TV interview with Mick Hucknall of Simply Red.
They were out walking around Manchester.
That’s Mick Hucknall — middle-aged, short, ginger, balding, yet still with long hair and paunchy. He’s reported as showing her round his old haunts.
Meanwhile Christine — young, tall, pretty, slim — is only reported as having a visible panty line (ie, you can see the seam of her knickers through the fabric of her black leggings and long top, if you look very closely).
Well hold the front page — oh, don’t bother, they already did...and the second and third — their corrosive, vile drivel went on for a fortnight.
Here’s me, researching all this inspiring stuff about what women have done to further social justice for all, from as far back as the 1700s and yet here we are, in 2010 and this crap is what passes for women writing about other women?
These are the same female “journalists” who would tut-tut about the barbaric treatment of women in other countries and yet here they are, not stoning Christine to death for adultery but crucifying her for having a VPL!
They must have to bathe in Swarfega at the end of their shifts to remove the greasy, slimy gunge they create.
I felt filthy after two minutes’ reading.
And to cap it all, alongside this piece, another headline: “Why do so many women dislike their bodies?” Total Irony-Bypass there.
“Yes, but what can I do about it?” you ask. Well, here’s what.
If you buy the Daily Mail just stop it now.
Don’t support this women-hating bile. It does nothing for any of us, male or female. It is anti-life, anti-love and anti-progress.
If you care about your children’s future, buy a different paper and don’t pay for this sort of medieval crud