Well that's DailyMail for you, where they tag anything parenting or healthy as "femail" section... cause you know only women are looking at that stuff.
Lol.
Anyways I actually think that's just reasonable response, system goes down/related system goes down , and in reviewing they are making frivolous updates to names that aren't needed.
I would question these updates (while they may be minor part of overall updates occuring).
At least until the 70s most newspapers had a section called "Women" or something similar. Even the news about the 60s/70s women's movement appeared there, not in the main "news" sections. Those sections were mostly renamed around that time to "Lifestyle", "Home", or just "Features".
Is this the UK or US edition? It's always easy fun to have a go at the Daily Mail which presumably you read regularly else you wouldn't be commenting. Its sin seems to be that it's not a serious broadsheet. It's a tabloid with very broad appeal that has to be profitable and therefore tries to reflect the requirements of the British public for such a publication. Perhaps you should lower your expectations.
'Tag anything parenting or healthy ...'? No, that's not correct. Here are a few health & food related items back to mid-September that did not appear in 'female'. You are right about parenting; most parenting in the UK is still undertaken primarily (in terms of executive action) by females so items on this topic are reasonably included in 'female'. The growing number of people who don't have children probably appreciate this sub-grouping by the Mail. You may not approve but this is what happens. Single males with dependent children are not known for objecting to checking out that section. It's not forbidden.
Dailymail is actually site a frequent multiple times a day everyday.
not all content is for everyone, but they got something, they are definitely a tabloid style.
they narrate particular views to the public but cover all different contents, and alot of content i would consider advertisements/plug than actual articles.
i would guess a highly elderly/conservative majoroity base
they pander to lowest common denominator, which is fine -- they are a for profit news/tabloid, i find some of it entertaining (As per daily visits).
do you work for them/just a big fan for doing all that digging in defense of DM overexaggerating i made that ALL content like that is in that category? i didnt take my own comment all that seriously so honest ask.
Except that was a completely different incident and it occurred in the United States, not the UK. The Daily Mail did try to make hay out of the idpol angle, but the British can't reasonably be accused of shirking responsibility for the FAA grounding flights in the US.
