The Daily Mail woman is always in the male gaze. This is what Samantha Brick has found, or perhaps it is what she already knew. Insidiously, but hugely successfully, the newspaper sells itself to the demographic it despises most -- women. Its misogyny is in no way hidden -- semi-naked women are displayed across all its pages, labeled too fat, too thin, too old for the outfit, or, outrageously, too young. In the Daily Mail women seduce "innocent" men, often for money, abuse their children and invite appalling violence to be perpetrated against them.
The Daily Mail woman is having trouble 'shifting that baby weight' or she is 'barely containing her curves,' depending on whether her 'excess' flesh is deemed repulsive or sexy. Pippa Middleton (sister of Kate) is in possession of what the Mail refers to as 'THAT derriere,' while older women are told to 'put it away.' Women in the Daily Mail are valued as mothers (though they are rarely good enough) and sometimes as loyal wives, but they are judged mainly on age-appropriate physical presentation, and their age is always given at the top of the copy.
As so brilliantly presented by the case of Samantha Brick, the other given about women, as far as the Mail is concerned, is that they hate and envy each other. The paper likes nothing better than what it calls a "cat fight." It is not difficult to hear the male-gaze titillation in the vocabulary -- cat fight, derriere, barely contained curves and their favourite phrase "cry rape." This refers to a woman (an abhorrent one, of course) who falsely accuses an innocent man of rape. In describing the rape, abuse and denigration of women the paper slavers over the vilest details of the court cases in question.
Well, there is hatred everywhere and nobody is making women read this stuff, you might say. Yet, they do. By the millions. The Mail is one of the few remaining British newspapers doing so well that it can afford to pay its journalists half-decently. We are all clamouring to work for them. I myself have hopelessly pitched hundreds of pieces to the Mail, desperate for the money and the exposure that freelance journalists and novelists so badly need. They want confessional drivel? Please let me write some! I Have Botox, I Drink Too Much, My Marriage is Rocky, My Dad is Dead and I am Sad, I Used to Be Promiscuous. I have near-shamelessly written most of these pieces for them and happily taken the cash. I deal with the editing process -- lots of questions peppering the copy in capitals, asking things like, WHAT DOES YOUR HUSBAND THINK OF THIS? -- and I quite enjoy the hilarity of being photographed by them. The paper does not feature women in trousers, so they send round a rack of really strange red, purple and pink off-the-shoulder dresses to choose from. Nobody looks good in them. I noticed that Samantha Brick (though in jeans in her family pics) opted for the lurid purple, or, more likely, it was chosen for her.
Women assign a lot of the paper's stories, women edit the copy, women style the other women, and every single woman I've ever spoken to on the Mail agrees the whole thing is absurd. They apologize for the questions they "have to ask" in order to make the copy read Mail-ish, they laugh at the hideous dresses they bring around, and they are embarrassed to say they work there when confronted at a dinner party. I have had messages from so many famous female journalists saying they hate every word they write for the Mail, but they've got a book coming out, so ...
Everyone obeys the surreal house style rules, which result in whole opinionated sentences and strange words and phrases being written into the first-person copy you submit -- things like "penned," "take a tumble," "jetting off," "stepping out," "channelling such and such a look," "makeup-free," "barely there," and their all time favourite "THAT dress/hair/derriere." The rules were set, originally, by editor Paul Dacre and are upheld by the senior men who are in charge of making sure the paper makes a killing in advertising. They all need their jobs and have become used to the culture. Almost none of them would be a Mail reader if they didn't produce it every day. That is why the whole thing feels so patronizing -- because it is. A former employee told me that to get a feature into the paper you have to assure the editors that the female subject is photogenic.
I don't believe that many of the women working at the Mail hate other women, even though the paper, with cruel glee, posted a photograph of the ordinarily pretty and not professionally styled Samantha Brick next to Angelina Jolie, styled to appear at the Oscars. I don't believe the women writing for the Mail hate other women, and I certainly don't believe that the women who read the Mail hate other women. So why do we put up with this lurid misogyny?
I think it is because the Mail confirms our worst fears and therefore seems like news. News is our worst fears confirmed-- crime, earthquake, flood, explosion, war, famine. The Daily Mail is able to present misogyny as news because it appears to confirm our worst fears -- people are judging me solely on my appearance and see me purely as an object of potential sexual violence. I am not seen as human. And it must be true because I read it in the Daily Mail.
RELATED VIDEO: Samantha Brick Discusses Her Daily Mail Piece
Emma Gray: Samantha Brick's Daily Mail Piece Misses The Point -- But So Does The Backlash
Years ago, when I hired my first assistant. Months later she confided that she was SHOCKED that I hired her. She was very qualified & organized, so why wouldn’t I hire her? She basically said that most women hated her because of her looks. I ignored the comment.
8 years later (last Oct) when I went for a job interview. I’ve survived 2 bosses that would make the Editor in the “Devil Wears Prada” look like a declawed kitty & excelled. At the end of my interview, after looking at my resume, my references the interviewer focused on 2 of my references who were men… and asked if they referred me because of my looks. (BTW she didn’t mention the other 2 were women)
OK, maybe I wasn’t qualified enough – but considering that I had gotten past the recruiters & a round of interviews + thanks to LinkedIn I had seen my predecessor’s resume, I knew that I was perfect for the job. But even if she didn’t want to hire me she didn’t have to resort to a snide personal attack.
I've only told this story anonymously.
https://moonbeammcqueen.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/leave-samantha-alone/
"I'm so tired of just being pretty."
The Daily Mail should really have used that for the original headline, but they're just not cultured or camp enough for it to register on their radar. :P
http://moonbeammcqueen.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/leave-samantha-alone/
1. Who cares?
2. Who needs one?
What I learned from this article is that the paper is produced by women, for women. So at least answer #1 should be the default.
"The rules were set, originally, by editor PAUL DACRE and are upheld by the senior MEN who are in charge of making sure the paper makes a killing in advertising"
Oh, but as you imply in your comment, the paper, the misogyny, the sexist culture it promotes....that's only an issue for women so "Who cares" :/
I did read the article, and even enjoyed all the excuses the women were making for perpetuating and helping create the misogny.
But this is media today. Even tv news networks tend to make mountains out of mole hills. Things that you didn't hear about 20 years ago are being broadcast as though they are the most shocking read of the day (ok a woman had an 18 lb baby, it has happened before and it will happen again). I think with our 24/7 news coverage and easy access to anything anyone writes and promotes as a journalistic piece opens the door for these types of people, ones who will promote themselves in any way shape or form, even if that means trampling on others to get some attention.
Maybe her lack of humility and narcissism is why she has no friends. It's human nature that when one puts oneself up on a pedestal, others want to knock that person off of that pedestal.
The Mail may have its "have to ask" absurdities, but so does every magazine catering to women — from Vogue to Cosmo to (even, now) Self. And, now websites (this one included; sorry editors) are no different. And, neither are we; what tweets do you read? The "I'm having a latte at such-and-such trendy cafe" ones or the ones with 140 titillating characters? Yeah, I thought so.
But, and this is a BIG but, just because we read it (and yes, we do, by the millions) doesn't mean we have to believe it. I was going to give all of us, men and women more credit. Perhaps I was being too generous ...
Samantha is attractive. There is a huge difference between being attractive and beautiful. I don't think she's hated for being attractive, I think she's hated for using her attributes to obtain freebies from others, it's nasty...prostituting her attractiveness like that, it's really gross.
That said, women are really, really mean to each other. Just wait someone will come along and attack me for me saying I'm beautiful. Women are so so cruel to one another, sizing each other up and summing up each and every flaw like it's a crime. I wish it would stop. No one should make themselves feel better by focusing on someone else's flaws, that is an ugly attitude.
I try to have expectations of myself. I sit silence while my friends slice and dice other women. For example. "Did you see what she was wearing?" "OMG if I hand cankles like that I'd never let them be seen in public!" "Her nose is too long." "She walks like a duck" etc etc etc Go to any celebrity gossip board and you will see women doing the same thing, tearing down other women's looks like it's criminal. I has nothing to do with my expectations. Just my observations.
Chaos would ensue. The 'powers at be' , would be hard pressed to make it happen without them. It would reveal all kinds of prejudice, and they would have no choice, but to make it obvious.
Sadly, it would take all/or almost all of these women, to be on the same page, and to make a true difference in world views. It's about changing the world, and pushing evolution forward.
If dollars/pounds are their goal....they are not only misguided, but, unaware of how important they truly are.
Perhaps if we raised those standards rather than our skirts....
Meh. She's okay, I guess. Although I am reminded of Nora Ephron's "I Feel Bad About My Neck."