|
Those who write for the Daily Mail often seem to show a staggering lack of awareness of the newspaper that they contribute to. On the 3rd March Lucy Elkin produced a two-page spread entitled: Why can't we love our bodies? Nine women reveal how they REALLY feel about their figures. In this article Lucy writes: The average woman thinks about her body once every 15 minutes, and the chances are she will be despairing. Surveys have found only 1 to 2 per cent of women actually like their figure, and while most in the UK are a size 14, many feel a size 12 to be fat. The rest of the article is given to 9 women describing how they feel about their bodies (largely quite negative). What surprises me is that Lucy didn’t feel the need to question the reasons why women hate their bodies or why they feel that being a size 12 is to be fat. I would imagine that if Lucy did start considering the reasons why women hate their bodies, the Daily Mail would probably be near the top of any list she could come up with. The Daily Mail has a strange relationship with women. Its creator, Lord Northcliffe wanted his newspaper to appeal to women as they were at that point an untapped market. Lord Northcliffe even published a second newspaper (The Daily Mirror) designed and aimed specifically at women, but it was not successful (he later recalled: 'Some people say that a woman never really knows what she wants. It is certain she knew what she didn't want. She didn't want the Daily Mirror.') The Daily Mail is still read by more women than men, yet the misogynistic tone and content of the paper seems to be at odds with this.
It has been asked before why women buy the Mail when it seems to treat them so poorly: Women, Germaine Greer once said, have no idea how much men hate them. But given the avid female following of the Daily Mail, despite its lamentable portrayal of women, you can't help wondering whether they hate themselves even more than men do. The Mail website dedicates great swathes of space to the Femail section, yet so much of the content of Femail seems to be derogatory to the female form. Take this week for example, the Mail runs a story on Britney Spears: Is that why they call it belly dancing, Britney? Star gives a gutsy display in her latest show: As she made an entrance on a swing at the weekend, the pop princess seemed unconcerned about the danger of being seen from an unflattering angle.
It was a stark contrast to the opening night of the tour when she showed off an enviably toned stomach. Why would women want to read a newspaper where a man (Richard Simpson in this case) writes an article, replete with 7 pictures, about a women looking slightly chubby - when clearly she actually possesses a body that most men would find more than agreeable, and is in no way fat. Furthermore, as Tabloidwatch points out, the Mail had a rather different view of Britney on her opening night than Richard seems to recall: Bulky Spears! As Britney returns to the stage after five years is she a bigger star than ever? Hardly a headline that you would associate with Richard's recollection that on the opening night of the tour she 'showed off an enviably toned stomach'. However, there is a little bit more to the original story than first meets the eye. As a poster on Mailwatch points out, the original article on Britney's comeback was actually headlined: 'Britney's back! Spears makes a triumphant return to the stage...' The article was then changed to the 'Bulky Spears' headline. You have to wonder why the headline was changed, was the positive nature of the headline not getting enough hits from the bitchy Mail readers only interested in the misery of others? Britney Spears certainly seems to be a favourite for the Mail - perhaps her credentials as a trailer trash girl turned star, turned single mother singles her out for more abuse as Mail readers recognise her as an American chav. Just 4 days after her comeback the Mail was already pointing out bruises on her thighs, before this latest article pointing out her 'unsightly bulge' - a phrase which has since been removed (the first comment complains about it). Searching the Mail website for 'Britney Spears' finds 1466 results, with the majority of articles being split into two main groups: group 1 - pointing out that Britney has gained weight (lost her toned stomach) and group 2 - pointing out that Britney has lost weight (regained her toned stomach). Amusingly, if Britney seems to be neither gaining nor losing weight, the Mail likes to make predictions: You won't stay thin like that: Newly buff Britney Spears slurps TWO iced lattes at once. What is clear to most people is that this really isn't news, it's just a constant up-close appraisal of someone's body. But it is also more than that, if Britney Spears is having trouble being the right weight, then what hope does the average women have? Britney's job requires her to stay in shape (if she is as the Mail reports, miming, then her figure and dance routines take on more importance) and she has plenty of time and resources to stay fit and healthy. What about women who work in an office and don't have the opportunities to exercise regularly, how must they feel when someone with the figure of Britney Spears is constantly criticised for any tiny perceived gain in weight? Britney Spears is just one example though, the Mail is bulging (poor word selection) with images and judgement on those that don't fit the Mail's idea of what a woman should be. Today provided a good example of how the Mail treats women: 
Even without reading the article we have already been given the judgement of the Mail: she has made a 'BIG mistake' (complete with cheap giggle from the wordplay of 'big') and furthermore, the fact that she 'isn't ashamed of her larger than average legs' naturally implies that she bloody well should be. Again, why is it exactly that women read the Mail in greater numbers than men?
Britney is just one of many women who have come under the watchful (and judgemental) eye of the Mail: Kate Winslet: 
Katie Holmes: 
Pixie Geldof: 
Jessica Alba: 
Gwyneth Paltrow: 
Victoria 'Posh Spice' Beckham: 
Sadie Frost: 
And now for something slightly different: 
|
