Super sexy misogyny special

So many women, so little time!

Do you ever find there just aren't enough hours in the day to judge, condemn, snipe and sneer at all the women you see in the papers and on TV? We do, so without further ado, let's get misogynistic! As an added bonus, please enjoy Olivia Newton-John's seminal 1981 classic 'Let's Get Physical' while you peruse the hot lady action.

First up, here's a nubile young thing - not too fat, not too thin - in her pants. Look at those curves: nice! After you've wiped yourself off, shake your head as you slag off her tattoos. I wouldn't let my daughter defile her own body like that - would you? Tell yourself that by criticising her tats you haven't really just been staring at a mostly naked 22 year old for no good reason.


Next!

Just how does Cheryl get her hair looking so good? What's her secret? You'll never guess...

Hair products! What a fake. And did you know she's Northern? Yes, it's a shame.


Next!

Lady GaGa fell over on stage. HAHAHAHAHAHA! She fell. Over. On stage! Women are so clumsy! Oh, and by the way here she is with a man's elbow touching her crotch. Mmmm, isn't it?


Onwards.

Eurgh, look at this foul thing smoking a cigarette. So unattractive. And look, she's a bit wrinkly too, probably the fags. It's not the same as pipes for us boys, the ladies love that musky aroma. No, let's be clear: women smoking is just plain offputting. Who is Hannah Waterman anyway? Ah, who cares.


Next!

Oh, Leona. You showed such promise. Great voice, nice hair, an acceptable body weight. We felt bad when that chap punched you, but now you've gone and worn a bloody see-through black top that shows your white bra when our photographer's megawatt flash goes off in your face, we see our sorrow was misplaced. You're breaking our fashion rules, hussy.


Who's next? Woohoo, it's Britney!

So obviously Britney was attractive when she was young, then she went fat and bonkers, and now she's doing her best to look nice again. Here she is in some skimpy clothes. There isn't really a story here, but it is a rather wonderful opportunity to laugh at how rubbish she is, while looking at her breasts:


'the singer was heavily criticised by fans and local media after she apparently lip-synched her way through the concerts.' Teehee!

'Tickets for her show were put on eBay with starting prices as low as 55p, with top-price tickets valued at £90 going for as little as £14.' Chuckle! Failure.

'Melbourne's Herald Sun newspaper said that performances there saw fans walk out early in disgust at a lacklustre performance' Guffaw! Still, nice tits you washed-up nutcase.

Right, one more.

This supermodel died after having plastic surgery on her 'buttocks'. She's dead, but that won't stop us printing a shot of her in the shortest dress we could find. Anyway, let's leave it to the commenters to sum up this tragic death:


'Well, she certainly won't be the envy of everyone now and I truly hope these pathetic people will stop playing with nature. This is all for the sake of vanity and we all know what we see isn't the 'real' person anyway' Quite. Not so vain now, is she? Ha.

'Silly woman! any operation carries a risk however small....how do you tell her children mummy died because she wanted a firmer behind? What price vanity eh?' What price vanity, indeed, Eddy from Oldham. Good question.

Well, death, it seems. Says so in the article.

'stupid silly girl. now her darling twins are motherless...'

For heavens sake, why didn't she think of that BEFORE SHE DIED?!

Idiot.

Who needs truth when you have an agenda?

Unscrupulous lawyers have again forced Britain's third favourite newspaper to pay out tens of thousands of pounds in damages to amoral nogoodniks for alleged "false, defamatory and deeply offensive allegations" and hurt feelings.

The latest judgement against The Daily Mail was meted out after the 'victims' - three career women cynically earning more from their high-flying jobs than most men - claimed that an article published on November 5th last year was inaccurate in stating that they chose to adopt children instead of giving birth just to avoid jeopardising their careers and attractive, svelte figures.

The offending article, which has been removed from the Mail's online internet webpage, was headlined: 'For most women, giving birth is the most fulfilling event in their lives. But some are so afraid of missing out on their careers and losing their figures they refuse to go through pregnancy and choose adoption instead. Practical, or just plain selfish?'

The piece concluded that the made-up situation is, of course, 'just plain selfish' and that women who dare go to work after having children are latter-day Jezebels too arrogant to realise their proper place is in the home (specifically the kitchen, or the bedroom on Friday nights) Adoption, it said, presented a practical way for work obsessed females to continue earning while having a child around so they could chat with colleagues about private nurseries and size 1 designer shoes.

But despite invaluable coverage in a respected national newspaper, the women - Edwina Langley, Lisa Beard-Rogers and Thema Davis - were not satisfied with the article's contents.

Mrs Davis claimed that the Mail had neglected to add that she was in fact unable to conceive naturally and so adoption was the only available option, Mrs Beard-Rogers said that, contrary to the article's assertions, she was in fact considering a natural birth, and Mrs Langley claimed to have been misrepresented and, in fact, wished to adopt as she was not in a relationship and because she wanted to give a stable, loving home to an underprivileged child that might otherwise spend countless years in care.

A source said: 'Look, the details aren't important, it's the bigger issue that matters. And that issue is that women should have children the old fashioned way and stay at home. I don't know why people get so wound up with boring, pointless facts.'

After complaining to the Press Complaints Commission, the three women accepted a £30,000 payout from the Mail. The newspaper defended its honour by revealing that 'offending elements' of the piece had been added by 'an unnamed executive who controlled a rewrite of the story...rather than the journalists who interviewed the women', which makes it ok because it was bigger boys who did it not innocent Mail journalists who would never dream of making mean things up about women.

Paul Dacre said: 'Well, boys will be boys. I can't control every tiny little thing that gets written.'

The unsavoury incident follows a number of other high profile cases where women have claimed compensation for frivolous grievances that they brought upon themselves anyway: in February a blonde TV presenter sued the BBC after being fired two weeks after giving birth, and only a month before, a married Muslim woman took her employer to court for some light-hearted office banter and racist innuendo.

A local man said: 'Cuh. These women should know their limits.'

Femail Special: Liz Jones, digested

Shorter Liz Jones:

"I own 46 acres of land in Exmoor, drive a BMW but can still afford to buy a Toyota SUV to drive my horsies around in, and I shop for wardrobes in upmarket Chelsea furniture boutiques. I'm really quite well off don't you know.

But I still can't write a column that makes any sense."

Unabridged version here.