Feminism

Yet again, The Mail Online have given me no great pleasure but to criticise their ‘not so worthy’ news story headline.

Meghan Markle at UN Women’s HeForShe Campaign Special Event

Being captured globally in newspaper headlines just for a pretty face, fit bod and iconic fashion sense, it definitely diminishes the successful efforts and accomplishments someone has made. And why is it that females are MAJORLY associated with these stereotypical themes of fashion and body image? Is this seen to be popularly newsworthy for mainstream audiences?

In tonight’s blog post, The Mail Online’s headline which I will be discussing is “Henna to impress Harry? Meghan Markle shows off a traditional Indian inking as she arrives at Mumbai airport after a charity trip”.
Have you noticed it yet? Of course you have. “Henna to impress Harry?” – as you can see here, according to The Mail Online a woman has to ‘dress to “impress”’ a man. Stereotypical enough yet?
Meghan Markle, massively recognised in the media for dating Prince Harry, is now never solely spoken of for being an actress in the American Drama Suits. Below, I have tried to crack down the belittling truth of the headline itself. What do you think the headline tells us?

Playing a role in celebrity culture and living out a successful career and lifestyle, sadly, I find that The Daily Mail have depreciated Meghan Markle’s purpose and achievements, however, they didn’t forget to mention how she “sported temporary henna tattoo on her right hand” and “dress down for her long-haul flight, teaming a black t-shirt with skinny jeans and white trainers”. Despite these statements being least critical, they still prioritise and comment on her appearance first and foremost over the purpose of her trip in Mumbai.

When taking a closer gaze at the numerous amount of images The Mail Online have featured in the article, it is noticed how none of these have particularly accentuated this henna tattoo on her right hand. So what can possibly be so special about it if Meghan Markle is seen wearing it? Meghan Markle acts as a famous fashion guru, providing The Daily Mail’s readership with the idea that her body shape, style and image is to be admired and act as a role model towards anyone.

Due to these idealistic representations of beauty and body image in different form of media, girls AND boys are left to feel vulnerable and begin to generate a low self-esteem over their weight & facial and bodily appearance. According to heartofleadersip.org, due to the influence of media, “7 in 10 girls believe they are not good enough or do not measure up in some way including their looks, performance in school and relationships” (source: www.axs.com/uk).

The Mail Online show no direction whatsoever within their article, whilst providing limited information on Meghan’s five-day trip to Mumbai and what her main aims and efforts were whilst being out there. Being an ambassador for the International Christian charity, “promoting young women’s health and hygiene for the charity World Vision Canada.”, this astonishing work isn’t shone within the article to have any significance.

It is continuously saddening how in today’s society, women are mainly noticed for their emotional and physical state, focusing on relationships and appearance. The Mail Online fail AGAIN to notice how fantastic women are in improving the world, helping out other societies and making social change for the better.

It is time to realise how independent and strong women are, and they have more of a purpose in society.

Today, I will be discussing the Mail Online’s headline “Mothers rule The Apprentice: Lord Sugar set to pick a winner between four women and one man – and three of them are working mums”.
Jumping straight in, can it be noticed how the Mail Online had to mention that three of the contestants in The Apprentice are “working mums”. It’s hard to agree with the Mail Online at times, but yes, in fact, these three contestants are working mums – and with images provided of the three with their families, we can finally trust the Daily Mail’s word for it. Despite this, it is still noticed how these three women, regardless of their hardworking ethic and business success, are still mainly labelled as this nurturing caregiver.

Jessica Cunningham during campaign task week 5 — Jessica Cunningham during video shoot task episode 5

In the article, it is mentioned how being separated from their children would be “the most challenging aspect of the competition”. This further expects these women to be sensitive and weak as they lose connections with their family for the competition. Do men and women really differ with their emotions to such a great extent?

Frances Bishop and Grainne McCoy, two of four female contestants left in the running for Alan Sugar’s £250,000 investment, who were also labelled as “working mums” in the Daily Mail’s headline, are further portrayed as family orientated rather than business woman through family pictures placed within the article. This idea of being the woman in the household being a homemaker and a breadwinner is a recent acknowledgement for many homes in the UK; family households are now predominantly seen to contain both partners to work and take care of the home and/ or children. So why is the Mail Online still enforcing this ideology of women being the only nurturer in the household?
Jessica Cunningham is quoted in the article, saying “It’s always hard being the breadwinner, because you have got three people who rely on you”. This persistent picture the Daily Mail are painting is that women are not capable of taking on such a responsibility; it is a man’s job. However, have the Daily Mail forgotten the 1:4 male, female ratio for this week’s Apprentice semi-final? Are we still to believe that men are the only ones who are capable of running a business, earning a living and having a family?
Not only is the stereotypical nurturing characteristic heavily portrayed in this article, but Jessica Cunningham’s image within the article is seen as raunchy and revealing as she wears a black leotard, with flawless skin and voluminous hair. It is questioned in my view what relevance this has towards the article. This being the forefront photo for the article throughout the whole of today signifies to me, the female body is certainly just to be looked at for the readerships pleasure, during in this sexualised attention. It can be viewed that this is seen to be empowering for women, having a good bod whilst running a successful business and making a tonne amount of money – but again, where is the relevance for this?

The Daily Mail have clearly objectified the women’s body and have belittled their ability to have control over their successful businesses. Taking their personal lives out of the context of the article, making them fragile and more family orientated, has been portrayed negatively by the Daily Mail as this interferes with their ‘business’. It is still shocking how they persist through the headline, article and images that women are still to be placed within the home.
How dare these women leave their children with their families for 10 weeks for a fantastic career boost.

Appearance matters – The Mail Online forget what’s important

Women are capable of running a successful business, aren’t they?