The Daily (embarrassment to) Males

by elizabethfcoates

“So this is what he means, right?”

Ah, do I love the Daily Mail. I always read it if I want to read some sensationalist poop. Not that I can say much; I write for my university’s equivalent, the SotonTab, which does have stories like “ARE THESE THE BEST STUDENT PRANKS?” 

Yes, really, we capitalise the titles. Hey, at least it’s accessible. The reading age of the Daily Mail and the Soton Tab is both ten years old; hence within their market they are big players.

The Daily Mail has a total readership (online and print) of over four million (figures) out of a possible readership of sixty four million (people who can read), whilst the Soton Tab has a readership of four thousand five hundred out of twenty thousand possible readers. Both are fast growing.

And the reason why they’re popular is because of this article I am going to discuss today. I challenge you to not have an emotional response, positive or negative. Mine was certainly emotional; it was along the lines of “Who cares?!” 

Even middle ground reactions can be extreme. Opinions are not linear, they are multidimensional and difficult to pinpoint even with the best technology in the world.

The article covers the comments of a Greek tycoon called Demetri Marchessini, who  recently donated a large amount of money to UKIP (already fairly contentious), saying that “women wearing trousers are ‘deliberately making themselves unattractive'”.

His reasoning is that women should not wear trousers for they have “large bottoms” and don’t have the “straight up and down” shape that men have, therefore they do not suit the shape of trousers like they do skirts.

Other than a snide comment about how he just likes seeing women’s legs and only values them on appearance (he does imply later on the article that trouser wearing women have caused a low birth rate and high divorce rate in this country; like as if adults simply don’t love each other anymore is based on clothing), how should we react?

Good question. My personal response is to shrug, for the man is an idiot and an embarrassment to men. Women don’t wear trousers to entice men. We wear trousers when we want to mean business. Jeans for cleaning the house. Blacks for work. Flares for dodgy Seventies parties. Linen trousers if we want to copy Ms. Lopez…

But then I reason that I am also an idiot and I’m wrong. This is the man’s opinion. This is not an attack on the female sex. No, really, it isn’t. It’s the same as when a woman asks her man what he would like her to wear.

He has a dilemma. He would rather she would wear nothing, bless him. but he has to say something. He then tries to guess. Mr Marchessini is simply far along the git line; if she won’t be naked for his enjoyment, then she will be as close as she can be to attractive whilst still being clothed. If he could say bikini then he would, but the choice was skirt or trousers. Skirt it is.

A git indeed. A woman should be valued for her individual character, as should a man, and not judged by one thing thought to be possessed by all genders (it’s all right men; you don’t always have to pay if you’re short on cash). And under this logic we all know to avoid him, for judging him individually for how he seems quite happy to present himself, we can pass him by and find a nicer man.

Unless he offers us money.

Just saying.

Good old Daily Mail. Shouting about a case of ‘sexism’, and rubbing off worse on the already rather abused male race. I think it may be somewhat losing its conservative edge.