Id never seen this before, pretty horrible to read about. I didnt see anthing about this guys boss making him go home and change. Also here is somethung about the original problem that inspired this well written blog post. [dailymail.co.uk]
It's ubiquitous -- even occasionally on this site. Even when the man has less information or expertise. Fortunately there are a few men who not only 'get it' but call other men on it when they see it. But there's a loooooooooong way to go.
This is all so confusing. Can someone humansplain it to me?
I had to do some reading so i could figure it out by myself.
Worth mentioning at this point that the Daily Mail is Britain's version of the National Enquirer and will print just about any old tosh if it might sell an extra copy (it gets sued rather a lot too, and takes a decidedly right-wing stance - including printing material that has drawn comparison with Nazi propaganda, which is perhaps no surprise as the paper openly supported Fascism during the 1930s, going so far as to print articles praising Hitler, Mussolini and Oswald Mosley, leader of the British Fascist group known as the Blackshirts, who were personal friends of owner Lord Rothermere. The Spectator, which isn't exactly left-leaning itself, commented "... the Blackshirts, like the Daily Mail, appeal to people unaccustomed to thinking." ).
This is intended to point out that anything the Mail prints shouldn't be considered reliable (hence it's been removed from Wikipedia's list of reliable sources) and isn't connected to this particular story - which I haven't bothered reading as it's of no interest to me.
good to check/re-check
sources...
I find it amusing that Wikipedia has a list of reliable sources. I had to constantly explain to my university students that Wikipedia itself was not a reliable source.