News: facts not necessary

This one has been brewing for a while.

I've taken a bit more of an interest of late in the sheer unbelievable cheek of the mainstream press. Everyday I sit on the Tube, watching people reading the Metro, the Mail and the Express. This morning I was reading The Sun over someone's shoulder and wanting to just snatch it out of his hands. He was tutting over some completely made-up story about banning Christmas, or schools making all the children dress in burqas, or some other fanciful rubbish.

The problem I have with these newspapers - which I will henceforth refer to as papers, until they actually start reporting facts - is not ideological. Granted, anyone who knows me knows that I'm not exactly sitting square in the Mail's target demographic. I think immigration is a good thing, I wish Parliament would bloody well hurry up and turf the Royal Family out of government, I understand that you vote for the party not the PM and I actually quite like wheelie bins.

Chances are that even if these papers were the bastion of journalistic integrity, I would find much to disagree with, but that's not the issue. I think it's a good thing that there are papers that promote both sides of the argument, that focus on different issues. I think it's great that The Guardian wants a liberal government, and I don't have a problem with other papers pushing for a conservative one. There's only one thing that I really care about in journalism and, rather cornily, it's the truth.

Like reporting facts honestly. Being open about your sources. Not just making stuff up. Unfortunately on these fairly basic points both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express fall flat on their faces. Other papers aren't exactly in the clear either - watch The Times spectacularly missing the point of the current "Don't Label Me" campaign by referring to the children in the advert as 'Christian children'. Look at the smug point-scoring and ask yourself: is this meant to be the news? Is this delivering the facts to the readership, or just leading them down the editorial line?

Bias is inevitable. I mean, even by selecting stories to cover there is selection going on. However, that can be done without being dishonest. Bloggers have been speculating for a while now why the Mail worked itself - and its readers - up into a hysterical rage about the student who pissed on a war memorial while blind drunk, but has said absolutely nothing about the repeated, deliberate desecration of graves in Manchester. Is it too far to speculate that this is because they are Muslim graves, and that this story wouldn't go down well with a readership already whipped up into a frenzy about immigration?

Immigration is a good topic to discuss actually, because in reality it seems only newspapers like The Guardian are willing to be adult about the issue. Search the Mail's archive for 'immigrant' and see what I mean. Yeah, fear-mongering much? A conspiracy of silence! £30,000 pay-outs! There's nothing wrong with a rational, evidence-based discussion on immigration, but neither the tabloids nor their readers seem to want that. Richard Littlejohn has been caught lying time and time again about this - about how much immigrants get on benefits (he doesn't actually know), about how most of the crimes in the UK are committed by Eastern European immigrants (he made it up) or about how a judge who made up a load of bollocks about immigration figures was being persecuted over his 'sensible' stance on the issue (he wasn't, he was just an arse). And that's just one columnist. I won't even get onto Jan Moir or Melanie Phillips here (who has the time?)

That's not even touching on their insane fucked-up relationship with sex and (oo-er) 'flesh'. That simultaneous celibate attitude whereby sex is something scary and dirty that good, moral upstanding people entirely repudiate. It's so bad, what this person has done (worn a strappy top, kissed a person of the same gender in public, slept with a few people) that you need to see full-size gloriously-coloured HD images of it! It's a weird self-hating attitude that screams of protesting too much. It takes some real balls to print this and describe it was 'disturbing' and then print dozens of stories a day about how healthy-looking celebrities are 'fat'. Hell, let's just look at Natalie Cassidy, whose revelation that the pressure of staying in shape for the tabloids almost led to her developing an eating disorder didn't stop them printing this revolting piece of shit just a few months later.

The bottom line is this:

The Mail, The Express, all of those trashy right-wing papers, lie. They make up figures, they deliberately fail to convey the truth behind stories and most of all, they fucking lie. They do it shamelessly, cheerfully, and all the while claim they're just telling it like it is. All the fucking time. The worst thing is that people swallow their poison, totally without question. If you're reading a paper like the Mail and just believing in it without doing your own research, you are doing it wrong. Critical thinking, rational inquiry, scepticism: without employing these while reading the news you may as well just be sitting under Rupert Murdoch with your mouth open.

For example, take a look at this superb take-down by Tabloid Watch of the Express' ridiculous headline about breakfast. Turns out the study that indicates that breakfast is, like, totally super-healthy was funded by cereal manufacturers. The independent expert they pulled in to confirm the story has done work for them very recently. Oh, and by the way nutritionist is not legally protected; I could call myself one apropos of nothing - it's that prestigious a title. This is no isolated incident: most of the 'science' stories you read in the papers are little more than trussed up PR exercises for companies looking to shift more products. The papers love using science as a shiny meaningless bauble, which is probably why this patently transparent rubbish makes it unadulterated into print, while the LHC, vaccines and global fucking warming get an absolute mauling. As soon as something is more significant than a minuscule lifestyle improvement it's dangerous and scary. Honestly, this attitude - this fear of progress - totally baffles me.

Actually, just for good measure take a look at this, because it's classic Mail: it starts with a leading headline that sounds like a definite conclusion, which is hugely reinforced in the first few paragraphs with phrases like "something terrible, unimaginable, was amiss..." They then back up the insanity with what they fondly imagine is science: "a small - but not zero - chance" that it will "rip apart the entire universe". They even refer to the absolute mentalists (or "twats" if you're Brian Cox) who think that this is at all likely as "maverick scientists". Maverick's a great word: it implies that you're going against the grain but that, ultimately, you'll be right. You're Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day, you're Dennis Quaid in The Day After Tomorrow, you're Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park! Then, right at the bottom, the last three lines - the last three fucking lines, after all the talk of doom, and the massive pictures of black holes destroying the Earth and tearing the universe apart - there's a bit from the scientists, who treat the idea with total derision. Whether or not there are any scientifically literate journalists at these papers is a good question but whatever the answer, it's pretty clear that there are no scientifically literate editors.

What else can I say? These papers have no ethics. They lie, they cheat, they even pay immigrants to break the law so that they can write stories about how immigrants break the law

There is no sound argument to be had in favour of them being anything other than opportunistic vultures who distort the truth and whip people up into terrified balls of hatred who are impotently angry that their country is going to the dogs even though the only 'evidence' of it is within the pages of the Mail. So when I attack the Mail, or the Express, it's not because I'm a liberal who can't stand to hear the 'truth', or even an opposing viewpoint. It's because they are not offering an opposing viewpoint. If you have to outright lie to make your point, then your point is bullshit. The sooner people realise that, the better, because at the moment the thought that the Mail is the second most widely-read newspaper in the country makes me feel sick.

Do you know what nemesis means?

Oh dear, I think I've got a nemesis. I didn't mean to. It just happened.

There I was, reading the following jaw-droppingly offensive Daily Mail article, happy as Larry (or at least as happy as Larry can be when reading the Mail), when I saw the name of the author of the final, horrendous bit from the 'male' perspective.

David Thomas. David Dickface Thomas. The author of the sterling piece of douchebaggery that inspired me to write this last month. Well, he's done it again. I think we were probably separated from birth or something, because he seems to set me off like no one else. Clearly an evil twin situation.

In a nutshell, the article is arguing that women don't have sex because they want to but in fact because they need some shelves putting up, or they want their partner to take out the bins. They can't do these things themselves: that's man-work! As with all 'science' journalism, this is based on a book, based on a scientific study, called Why Women Have Sex. I haven't seen the science behind this book, and I'm willing to bet Liz Jones hasn't either. I don't know what controls they put on the questionnaires to ensure that the respondents were being truthful, or the exact contents of this list of why women have sex. Perhaps the phrasing "high up the list" implies that there is more to the results than the Mail chooses to pass on. Hey you never know, having sex because it's enjoyable might be up there too!

It's classic. Women aren't sexual! They don't want orgasms and good sex, they just want a loving partner. They'll prostitute themselves to have somebody care about them, that's just how needy they are! Those women who actually like sex, and don't seem interested in submitting to providing sex to their partner on demand so that he shows them basic courtesy and affection are the product of broken homes and lack good father figures. Liz, what planet do you live on?

She also peppers the piece with misandric tripe about the male sex drive being "blunt" and stunted. While you get the sense that her misogyny is fairly accidental - she sounds essentially like "I'm not a feminist but..." - her misandry is an unthinking reflex. She has absolutely no qualms about dismissing the male sex drive out of hand, characterising men as being scared of discussing feelings and - perhaps worst of all - implies strongly that men only care about sex. This 'revelation' that women only have sex with men because they want us to do some DIY around the house is to be met with indifference rather than dismay and horror. Most people I know would be appalled to find out their partner didn't have sex with them because they actually wanted to. You know why? Because men care about more than sex in relationships. Christ alive.

But don't just take her word for it! She bases all this on the findings of the book, despite no mention being made of whether any men were interviewed. So does the book discuss male sexuality in depth, probing the whys and hows behind male sexual behaviour? Probably not. It is, after all, a book about the relationship between women and sex. I would love to know how many of these bald statements about male attitudes to sex are actually based on the book and how many have just sprung fully-formed without independent thought from the brain of Liz Jones.

I wasn't exactly expecting David Thomas to leap to the defence of male sexuality, despite the fact that he's an odious anti-feminist. It would be very out of character, given that the myth that men are mindless slaves to their sexual urges suits him right down to the ground. It's a stereotype that he believes is beneficial and one he's quite happy to propagate with the following:

"A young man's relationship with his sex drive is like a dog-walker's with an ill-disciplined dog: he's led from pillar to post without hope of discipline or control."

I've already highlighted Thomas' cavalier attitude to sexual asault and rape elsewhere, but if this is what he actually believes I'm not very surprised. Worst of all he then chooses to define himself as a progressive man who loves women! They're not the "pointless, silly creatures" that all men assumed them to be in their youth (and who wouldn't, what with their hormones and shoe shopping?) but in fact real human beings. Right, look. I'm 22 years old. I am, by any definition, a young man. I know plenty of people my age and younger who see women in the way David Thomas describes and they are - to a man - disgusting examples of human beings. The idea that treating women with respect, as equals is something that it's acceptable to learn with age is unforgiveable. I understand the use of this stereotype in justifying unethical sexual behaviour, and treating women like shit, but that's no reason to uphold it.

His toe-curlingly awful attempts to appear to be more than a cave-dwelling troll succintly sum up all the reasons I hate him. Just look at this:

Women don't have to do anything to hold men in their power. Just existing is enough. Why else would men have written countless poems and love songs; why else would they have painted them, sculpted them, gone to war for them?

The key message here? Women: you don't have to be smart, or intelligent, or interesting. We wouldn't care if you were blow-up dolls. Just as long as you can provide sex and look pretty on our arms! And if you're lucky - and I mean really lucky - we'll even engage in all sorts of activities which you won't be involved in and for which you'll get no credit. Gosh aren't we romantic! It's the illusion of power that Thomas is trying to sell. The warm fuzzy feeling he imagines women will feel when they read this. "Gosh, we hold men in our power just by existing". In truth, however, this is just naked, ugly misogyny.

Wrapping it up with a saccharine-sweet "aww but ladies you know you love us" attempt at justifying his argument, David sits back and smiles at the great opus before him. Sensible readers vomit all over their keyboards and stagger out into the street to rage at God and such a cruel twisted world that could have David Thomas in it. It makes my skin crawl, and his attempts at charm aren't even aimed at me.

So what's the worst thing about this article? The fact that David Thomas appears to believe whole-heartedly that women have no desire for sex beyond needing the odd shelf putting up, or that he claims to speak for both genders with his all-encompassing comments on human sexuality? Enough has been written about how ridiculous Liz Jones is to fill several volumes, but I am worried about the increasing presence of David Thomas on these issues. What special skills or qualities does he have that give him the appropriate comprehension and sympathy to write so often on feminism and women's issues? All I've seen of him has confirmed beyond doubt that he is a massive, wrong-headed cock who has some serious problems relating to women.

Harman, feminism & the Daily Mail

Words fail me. How do you respond to something like this written by Daily Mail hacksmith David Thomas?

Straw men abound, and the whole thing is written in a way designed to convince the Mail’s readership that equality legislation - and feminism - is a ridiculous idea on a par with "elf 'n' safety" and the feared "PC gone mad". Although there are plenty of shameless half-truths and purposeful misinterpretations, it also leans heavily on the Mail’s own language: certain words and phrases designed to give the reader a thought-free way of making an instant judgment about an issue. Out of interest, let's count the amount of times they throw in a sexist insult, belittle women or completely fail to get the right end of the stick.

TITLE

"My womanifesto"

The second word! He doesn't waste any time does he? Here he’s making light of the fact that predominantly throughout history language has grown to be exclusionary towards women. You only have to read something from the 1970s to see that this is indisputable. However, Thomas completely misses the point, because everyone knows that the 'man' in manifesto has about as much to do with masculinity as homogenous does with with homosexuality. It actually comes from the Latin for hand - manus - and using it in this way openly mocks the idea that language could be sexist. It tries to make out that feminists are demanding special treatment when in the real world (as opposed to the Mail’s fantasy land), no feminist would seriously suggest amending the word in that way. The criticism also fails because even if the 'man' was gendered, replacing it with 'woman' is the last thing that a feminist would do, because it's about equality, not dominance. The Mail seems to accept this principle when referring to 'Harriet Harperson' but curiously fails to do that here. Maybe internal consistency is too much to expect from editors these days.

"anti-male blitzkrieg"

Feminists are Nazis for demanding equality. Equality legislation, where it tries to redress the balance of centuries of institutionalised misogyny, is the kind of crazy thing Hitler would do. Oh come on, you know him! Killed about 50 million people by starting a horrendously destructive six-year war and ordering unforgiveable atrocities - just like Harriet Harman. Oh no, wait, nothing like Harriet Harman. Also, feminists hate men count: 1

"zealously feminist agenda"

Unhinged and irrational. Because treating men and women as individuals with equal capacity for achievement and disappointment is crazy, whereas buying into stereotypes that were invented to keep women oppressed is totally sensible. Bloody hell, and that's just the title. Buckle up kiddies, this might take a while.

MAIN ARTICLE

"making rape laws even tougher against men"

Because obviously they're so tough already. The conviction rate for rape is approximately 7%. That means out of every hundred reported cases only seven people go to trial. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that the other 93 women are just making it up to seek attention, or lying because they were unhappy with the person they'd slept with in the morning. Actually the police categorise only 3% of cases as 'probably' or 'possibly' false so if we were to use our 100-case example above, even if three people were wrongfully convicted in addition to the seven who actually did rape someone, that leaves 90 rapists at large. Remember too that only takes into account cases that go to trial - a rape is reported every 34 minutes in the UK, and the latest news is that the police suspect about 95% of incidents are never reported. Is anyone surprised, when the law is so ill-equipped to handle rape cases? Better to suffer in silence than to go through a traumatic and expensive court process, which is most likely to result in the rapist walking free. I think that this sentence is the most hateful of the article so far but then again, it's early days. Feminists hate men count: 2

"staging a secret attempt…"

Here David Thomas uses the word ‘secret’ to imply deception and espionage that will hurt you. Like ‘stealth’ taxes, here is a government minister sneaking something in on the sly to avoid the ever-watchful gaze of Mail readers, who spend all their spare time scrutinising every White Paper and policy plan that comes out of Westminster for sneaky goings-on. What he is actually doing – and this is either willful deception or utter ignorance – is confusing ‘secret’ with ‘private’. What exactly is secret about suggesting a rule change? Party officials discussed, and ultimately rejected her proposal to ensure that a woman was always in one of the top jobs in Cabinet.

Whatever you think of the actual policy, it is fairly obvious that ‘secret’ is utterly the wrong word in terms of inconvenient things like truth, and journalistic integrity. It’s definitely the right word if you want to get Mail readers’ spleens working overtime. She’s absolutely right that an all-male leadership is unacceptable considering how few of them seem to have any policy concern for women’s rights. Women, after all, only make up 50% of the population. Whether or not her proposal is a sensible way to deal with the overwhelming male majority in Parliament, and most governments, is a valid topic for discussion – not something to be filed away under “aren’t feminists crazy”. You can’t really get more patronising.

"But these are just trifling details. Behind the trivial statistics, it is absolutely clear that women are oppressed..."

No need for sarcasm Mr Thomas. Girls may perform better at school but at university they don’t – Oxford for example has a huge finals gap. While it is again true that more women are entering high-salary professions like medicine and law than ever before, women on average still earn about 17% less than men in the same roles. More women in traditionally male roles means nothing unless they're being treated equally! This is even covered elsewhere in the Mail!

"[Harman] certainly encountered crushing discrimination…"

I am actually astounded that the Mail considers this quality journalism. Taking the experiences of a single person and using it to dismiss any wider problem. Well you know what Mr Thomas, I’m an atheist but I’ve never experienced discrimination because of it, so discrimination against atheists doesn’t exist. Harriet Harman is a woman and has had quite an easy life, so therefore we can completely ignore the 30,000 women every year who lose their jobs illegally due to pregnancy, or the fact that 25% of women will be victims of domestic violence sometime in their life. Both men and women face gender-based discrimination but you'd have to be pretty blinkered to deny that women have it worse, and to do what David Thomas does – to imply that this oppression just doesn’t exist – is astonishing. You can feel the bitterness bleeding through every word in that sentence.

"I am determined that our daughters will never have to bear that terrible yoke..."

While the word ‘yoke’ is clearly meant as sarcasm, I just find myself wanting to applaud the sentiment as though it were serious. Oh yes, says the Mail, let’s sneer at a politician who is standing up for her principles. It doesn’t matter that we’ve been going on for months about slimy career politicians standing for nothing but office; because we disagree with this woman we’re going to savage her for even trying.

"...so I'm going to make our sons endure it instead"

Feminists hate men count: 3

"I should not have referred to 'Lehman Sisters'. I should, of course, have called it ' Lehperson Sisters'..."

It’s political correctness gone mad! I can only assume that since the nickname Harriet Harperson is all over the comments on articles about her, this constitutes Mail-level wit. Of course, she never said ‘Lehman Sisters’. Another example of taking a sound objection to male-dominated language, applying it to something ridiculous, and then laughing because what feminists believe is ridiculous. This is solid gold material, providing you're in nursery school.

"As we all know, women are, by nature, far more financially responsible than men, who are fuelled by a testosterone-driven madness that makes them take risks no woman would consider. Particularly not if there was a handbag to spend the money on instead."

Statistically, it is true that women are more fiscally responsible, although no one is arguing that it's down to some fundamental genetic nature. We’re clearly meant to disagree with this bit, judging by the sarcastic tone, but the fact remains that women in banking generally take fewer risks of the kind that sparked this whole financial meltdown. Testosterone encourages risk-taking. Look, science!

This doesn’t mean that all men take more risks financially than all women. You and I know this, Harriet Harman knows this, and I suspect David Thomas knows this. He is, however, doing his very best to paint things in a simple, easy to understand black-and-white way. He finishes of course with an old stereotype intended to be the dazzling sucker-punch that hits the unwary reader right in the frontal lobe. Women are more cautious with spending? Yeah right, have you ever been to a sale at Schuh!

A perfectly valid observation provided you’re able to comfortably equate a shopping spree with, say, causing the century’s largest global meltdown and losing millions and millions of pounds of investors’ money. I can’t really be bothered tackling the whole shopping thing right now, but I’ll just say that the media can be awfully selective when it looks at spending habits, and it’s rare to see men criticized for the amount of money they spend on products that are actually marketed at them like video games, DVDs, gadgets, cars etc.

"…so that no silly little boys make naughty economic decisions without getting her permission first"

You’re allowed to make crap jokes about this only on days when the corporate officers of the world’s largest corporations – 84% of whom are men – have not just destroyed the global economy. Furthermore, this is totally twisting Harman’s argument. She has repeatedly said that she believes that in big business and in government it is better to have a gender-balanced team running the show, considering that any decisions made are going to affect millions of people of both genders.

What David Thomas has done here has taken that comment, made it out to be a man-hating feminist ploy, implied very strongly that men are the real victims here and then – to top it all off – relegated the hypothetical female CEO to a motherly, scolding position. He doesn’t seem to understand how he’s demolished his own argument. Real decision-making power? No, all she’ll do is tell off the ‘naughty little boys’ who make risky financial deals. Maybe she can make a fucking pie for the board of directors while she’s at it? Or how about a lovely roast? Fuck you David Thomas. Feminists hate men count: 4

"a man may be prosecuted - with a minimum 100 per cent conviction-rate - for any 'romantic' act not preceded by a full risk-assessment, a signed contract of consent - and a Breathalyser test"

No matter how drunk you get, you know when consent has been given. I can’t believe that this was in a national newspaper. That someone deemed this worthy of publication. I’ve already mentioned the statistics but even if the picture was a lot better how can you excuse referring to rape in that coy little sarcastic phrase "a romantic act"? It's utterly despicable.

If you remember, the police estimate only about 5% of rape incidents are ever reported. People wonder why the conviction rate is so low, and they wonder why ‘arguments’ like “well what does she expect dressing like that” are still rolled, but they need look no further than the Daily Fucking Mail. All they do is reinforce the idea that women overreact about rape, that it's mostly a fuss made over nothing: an editorial position which I'd be willing to bet has been taken without any significant research being carried out. Who needs evidence, or scientific reports, when you have gut instinct?

Out of interest I did a search on the Mail’s website for the word ‘rape’, as it’s never far from their front pages. From the first 50 results, 23 were about women who ‘cried rape’, or were written in a way which cast significant doubt on the veracity of the victim's claim. Included in that delightful selection was Peter Hitchens arguing that “drunk rape victims deserve less sympathy”; that’s right Pete, flaunt your compassionate conservatism! So considering that approximately 3% of rape cases are ‘possibly or probably false’, how can the Mail justify the fact that 46% of their articles about it encourage the idea of women using rape as a weapon against men?

"What's more, any man who tries to seduce a woman by means of sexist gifts such as flowers, chocolates, jewellery or poems, shall be arrested for unfair inducement"

When was the last time someone you know said flowers were sexist? I mean come on David, are you even trying any more? What happened? Did you give a woman flowers and chocolate as part of an unwritten contract of “I gave you a gift, now have sex with me”? Was she not keen? Can’t imagine why. Frankly anyone who seems to have trouble distinguishing between seduction and rape shouldn’t be dating at all. Also note the creeping hint of “feminists are making a fuss over nothing – they’re so crazy they’d ban chocolate!” Creating a straw man like this – feminists think flowers are sexist – allows Thomas to again attribute an opinion to Harman that she has never vocalized and then points out how crazy it is. We know it’s crazy, pal, because you made it that way to prove your point.

"...precautionary sterilisation of all males at birth"

Ha ha ha – that’s just the kind of things those crazy feminists would do! You know why? They hate men! Why else would they want financial independence, or the right to vote, or equal pay, or an end to gender-based discrimination? It's probably worth taking a moment to fully consider how monstrous an accusation that is against feminists, and another moment to think about just how fucked up David Thomas must be if he actually thinks that this is something Harman is likely to do. Feminists hate men count: 5

"Across our nation, millions of ordinary women are too afraid to leave their homes at any time of day or night"

Well, surveys consistently show that women are apprehensive about going out at night – the most recent one I have access to was carried out by women’s magazine More and the figure was 95%. Thomas is here trying to make people scoff at this idea but he clearly hasn’t done his homework. He mustn't have heard of Reclaim the Night either, which last year had 2000 participants.

"All men are b******s
All men are wrong, all the time
All crime is committed by men
All crime is committed against women"

None of these are feminist beliefs, or the views of Harriet Harman. A total straw man that fails to stand up even to basic scrutiny. Feminists hate men count: 6, 7, 8 and 9

"It is time to do away with tired, sexist notions such as 'innocent until proven guilty'..."

Stop it Mr Thomas, please just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself.

"…based on my principles of gender equality, a man accused of a crime will be asked his name, offered the chance to make a formal apology, then told the length of his sentence."

Feminists hate men count: 10

"If women ruled the world, there would be no wars..."

Where the hell did this one come from? I mean, I understand that the rest of this ham-fisted attempt at parody was based on comments Harriet Harman has made this week, but as far as I can see this one was just pulled straight out of David Thomas’s ass. It goes without saying that no feminist believes this. Fuck, no person in the world believes this. It’s twice as much of a failure because even if we descend into his weird little world and take this at face value, he’s giving us two examples of female wartime leaders and then sitting back with a smug look on his face. “See, Harman claims that women aren’t aggressive (she doesn’t) but look at Thatcher and Elizabeth I!” Mr Thomas, I think you might find that over the course of history, most military leaders have been men. Do please list the world’s current female dictators for me, or all the women wanted for war crimes by the UN.

"I will speak to him slowly and clearly, in a way that even a man can understand"

With a deft flick of the wrist, Thomas devastates Harman’s opinions on gender equality with self-deprecating irony. The implication that feminists think that men are stupid is also false. In actual fact the more aware people are of gender issues, the less likely they are to be sexist. It’s people who’ve never given these ideas a second thought that uphold traditional gender stereotypes; at least that’s what science says. Feminists hate men count: 11

"That said, it is quite wrong for women to be denied access to front-line infantry combat, just because they are the world's natural peacemakers."

This saddens me most of all, firstly because I was unaware that women cannot serve on the front-line and secondly because the fact that men have to shoulder that burden instead is a pressing issue for male rights. It's no more acceptable to forbid female soldiers from doing what they signed up to do than it is expecting men to take all of the brunt of the fighting. You’d think someone as rabidly anti-feminist as Thomas would be all over masculism (at least the troglodyte woman-hating end of it), but it’s quite clear instead that he’s never given it a moment’s thought. That’s right, it’s an opinion piece about the gender debate written by someone who has clearly never read anything on it. Bravo, Mail!

"Far too often, they concentrate on boys' toys, such as guns, tanks, jet fighters and aircraft carriers. From now on, the focus will be on battlefield creches, nappy changing facilities and transgender support groups."

What exactly does transgender have to do with feminism? It seems very strange to parachute this in with no explanation into a list of perceived ‘feminine’ interests. Because all women love babies and transgender people? What? It’s probably worth pointing out that transgender people face prejudice from pretty much every corner and it's entirely possible to find feminists who will discriminate against them – just look at Germaine Greer. So it's hardly something fundamentally feminine. I honestly don’t understand what Thomas is trying to do here; it just doesn’t make sense. Please, someone, enlighten me! I’m also fairly worried about anyone who considered ‘guns, tanks, jet fights and aircraft carriers’ to be of a kind with gadgets from Firebox. No, they’re not boy’s toys. They’re designed to kill people.

"Despite my fierce commitment to state education..."

This has very little to do with the gender issues I'm trying to highlight with this critique, but I couldn't resist commenting on this. It may surprise David Thomas to know that children generally do not choose which school they go to, and it’s hardly Harman’s fault that her uncle was a lord. Does it matter to the Mail that Harman is pretty much the polar opposite of Lord Longford, the famed homophobe? Of course not! She’s got a posh uncle, therefore she cannot understand people who aren’t landed and wealthy! Who cares if her roles in Parliament have mainly been in social security and welfare, or that she was responsible for a guaranteed minimum wage? Her relatives are posh!

For some reason, David Cameron and George Osborne – both heirs to baronetcies – tend to escape this criticism. It’s weird too, how the Mail absolutely slammed Labour for running a by-election campaign highlighting that the Tory candidate came from a rich family. I remember various stories and debate articles referring to the mocking of Timpson’s wealthy background as “vicious”, “shockingly personal”, “puerile and poisonous class war tactics”. Hypocrisy, from the Mail? Surely not!

Finally, although it has nothing to say about the topic in question, this sentence is so bad I had to share it:

"What would Harriet do if she were given the keys to Number 10 for real?"

For real mister? Really? Gee willickers!

Reading back, it’s clear to see that pretty much the whole article is brimming with barely-repressed misogyny. David Thomas hates women, and he hates uppity women that don’t know their place most of all. He is fuming – absolutely livid – that Harriet Harman is in a position to push through equality legislation, and is impotently stamping his feet and tearing out his hair because his fragile masculinity feels threatened by the idea of women in positions of power. He believes that basic logic like “I think a balanced team of men and women makes better decisions” is an indication that Harman wants to put bromide in the water to sterilize men. He is, in short, a dickhead.

It’s not that this is particularly atypical for the Mail, or that this is a particularly bad example. Its just that it is a brilliant summary of the way the paper views women. I couldn’t have put into words that heady mix of sneering superiority and raging impotence, but David Thomas has done it for me. What I can’t work out is why most of its readers are women – what attraction is there in being told that your equality is a ridiculous, dangerous concept? One of the paper’s former reporters is on record as saying that the perfect Daily Mail story is “one that leaves the reader hating somebody, or something”. I don’t think it’s quite what he meant, but I’m certainly leaving this one hating David Thomas and his colleagues at the Mail for letting this inaccurate, insulting trash get published in a national newspaper.