Daily Mail in "utter bullshit" shocker

[ewt]

Does anyone actually take this stuff seriously? I mean, really! But then, maybe I'm suffering from a sample error. Maybe people do think like that, and I just don't really know about them because my friends are made of sterner intellectual stuff.

He claims men couldn't possibly understand the insecurities women have about abandonment. How did he know enough to write the article, then?

He has "anecdotal evidence" that women are frightened. Oh NOES! Anecdotes!

I was going to finish pulling this apart but reading it is bad for me, so I'll stop now.

Comments

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

What a load of claptrap - and I'm sorry, any woman who's being asked to assess a series of photos of men is not likely to think "oh wow, that Burger King uniform is sooooo sexy, he's mine forever!"

[spangle-kitten.livejournal.com]

I also started thinking "it can't just be me...can it?!"

I think he just has it plain worong. He's talking about evolution - which is biological and universal across a species.
Why then are men and women different in different cultures? What he seems to be talking about it a sort of social evolution, if it were pure evolution women would be picking men with the best genes and health over money.

He's on about social topics, not biological, they're also only social opinions in the Western world.

Though it is the Daily Mail...so bigotry, narrow mindedness and scant regard for actual fact checking is as per normal...

[sci.livejournal.com]

Analysis starts at home, and as far as I've seen phsychologists seem to have an improbably bad judgement on well rounded partners.
If anything though I'd think it could possibly be a propaganda attempt to reassure all the men out there who're afraid they're going to loose their independant women. Don't worry, she may act independant, but deep down she NEEDS you, so don't worry and no need to stop being a dick. etc, etc..

Realisticly, everyone fears being alone to some degree, male, female and other alike. Some more than others.
There may also be a touch of statistical skewing in that women with the "job to die for, a fabulous home and a supportive husband" are still in a big minority, so so are likely to be under more stress and as a knock-on effect possibly more prone to stress-induced paranoia?
I know it's an old tale that when a male's having trouble balancing his power lifestyle, he becomes extra paranoid over the other aspects in his life.
People are people.

I think he's been looking at a far too small sample group.

[powershutdown.livejournal.com]

Your subject line made me laugh. The article didn't! And I don't think many feminists are naive enough to think that we've reached the end of history and a few Condy Rice's mean equality has been achieved.

[crankles.livejournal.com]

I started to read, and then asked myself if it was worth it to get annoyed over something that I know (and see evidence of each day) isn't true.

Even research has "Howard Sterns" out to shock ;)

[the-elyan.livejournal.com]

Given that the last article I was directed to in the Mail was a sometime friend of mine talking about her polyamoury (Pointless Hobbies #134: explaining polyamoury to Mail readers), and coincidentally laying out her marriage to a current friend, I take everything they say with whole heaps of salt.

Or better, a sock with a half-brick in it.

[vectorious.livejournal.com]

I make it good practice to as default take the opposite position to the Daily Mail in every debate, on that basis that this is correct 99% of the time, and the remaining 1% are generally such a shock to find that the Mail has been correct about something, that I forget that there is a debate.

[hairyears.livejournal.com]

It's the Daily Mail... What's the standard answer?

Be thankful that anyone likely to believe such nonsense - or enjoy the way it panders to their prejudices - is probably still mumbling and drooling their way through it, one word at a time. No doubt the editor will be reciving a deluge of opinionated (and suitably bigoted) replies. Next week. In crayon.

[poetpaladin.livejournal.com]

He repeats so many times that a woman is more likely to forgive a man for infidelity... makes me wonder if he's trying to scientifically bullshit his wife!

[pplfichi.livejournal.com]

Um, it's the Dail Mail. 'Nuff said.

The oddest thing about this...

[pungoose.livejournal.com]

... is that it's more or less the inverse of the spiel I've heard at least once about how ("sorry, but...") men depend on women more than women on men, etc, and this is - again - down to biology.

The main flaw is that he continuously jumps to conclusions about the strategies men and women use. People's strengths, weaknesses, and behaviours vary wildly. Monogamy is one approach; "get married and cheat" is another. Obsessive jealousy is another approach, but liable to backfire drastically.