It's a well-established fact that children deprived of their fathers do worse by every social metric known to science. But the demands of the Female Imperative are such that not only must the material interests of millions of children bow before it, but it is deemed unacceptable for men to even think about criticizing the behavior of women exercising their legally-protected Imperative. Of course, the ad's perfectly legitimate and rhetorically razor-sharp criticism of Kate Winslet is going to upset many women. After all, if the Female Imperative is weakened and family courts stop favoring idiot actresses dumb enough to marry three men, including one who calls himself Rocknroll, then they'll probably be raped and have their own children seized by court-appointed social workers. Or something like that.
15 comments:
Only half OT, Technology in the war between the sexes (note the site is pro push women into STEM so i'm not sure which side).
Her only chance at winning this lawsuit is to find a way to sue them in Europe. This wouldn't even survive a MTD in the US, but they have funny ideas on publicity rights across the pond.
Nah, they don't care what they are called, or this or that. It's about the money. Much like public schools. They don't care about kids, at all. They just want the damned money for the little monsters. It's an industry. And a women who has a child from a man who makes enough to pay... meal ticket. Winslet, I know nothing of the freak, just that the relatively wealthy don't have to play by almost anyone's rule, and quite often they don't. Thankfully, that level of independent wealth is a rare thing indeed.
I honestly think, if they could get the money but had to give up the kids, most of them would take the money. Sooner rather than later.
It appears Sam Mendes, one of the baby daddys, is whiteknighting for her. What a wonderful show of loyalty and captainship to his - well, she's not his wife anymore, so yeah, just whiteknighting.
And another of the baby daddies is in with F4J! "In 2004 Mr Threapleton spoke out in support of the group, claiming he went months without seeing Mia."
"Fathers4Justice said it initially agreed to hold off from placing the adverts to give the 38-year-old time to confirm that her comments were accurate.
However, they said yesterday that no explanation had been forthcoming and they planned to continue with their attempts to place the advert."
Well played. Surely, any corporate body faced with the thread of a very public lawsuit will double-check its work. But they were able to reframe it as giving HER time to make sure she wasn't falsely accusing them of defamation. Then they are going to go ahead and publish it anyway. Surely, again, they have spent the interim gathering some more dirt on her and her ilk. I don't think this is going to work out for Winslet, and in any case their mission is publicity, which she has given them plenty of for free so far.
The comments are also a hamster farm. A few "my ex never cared about our kids so this group is wrong!!1!" are rhetorical-solipsism classics.
I suspect Winslet objects mostly to having different fathers for each of her kids publicized. It screams she can't keep a man, or jumps from man to man. And that her family will be filled with sibling rivalry amped up to 11. It reflects badly on her, that one or the other is true: can't keep an Alpha, or thinks with her vagina.
Winslet is wealthier than her former partners, has a bigger career. But it is predicated on appealing to women as the ideal "independent" nice woman and acting like a ghetto baby-mama threatens that. Hence, the lawsuit is my guess. Related of course is unauthorized use of her likeness, actors and other public figures who get money from that have to police that sort of thing rigorously. Lest they let their likeness be public domain and forgo income.
I fail to see where the advertisement is untrue. What basis does she have to sue?
I suspect Winslet objects mostly to having different fathers for each of her kids publicized.
Yeah, three kids by three different men -- and bragging about it -- is still unseemly to most people, even today. They might claim there's nothing wrong with it officially, but they'll still think less of her, and she knows that.
I'd like to think there is some shame in three children from three different men, but I don't think so. While it is a statement of "something," it seems to have become a badge of pride for liberal elite to "go ghetto," especially when they really don't; Ms. Winslet, et. al. do as they do because they have the financial means to do whatever they so feel like doing. I would think if she has any shame (or discomfort or annoyance) it comes from something real she experiences with her kids - like who's dad (and dad's parents/family) does thus and so versus another's dad's family. That's the real inequity kids feel at their stages of life, and that would be burdensome and indisputable to mom; she may crow about keeping them under her roof, but she has 3X the extended family with which to contend. Despite her public defensiveness, there's a price to pay for selfish wantonness; it always comes back to bite.
The problems will hit her children as they grow older. Plenty of problems to come, no matter what she does now. It really sucks to be those children.
What a PR disaster. Why is anyone listening to KW?
Wait, she is 11 days out from healing after labor?
Give the woman a xanax.
I am sure you all heard about the man in Manhattan jumping off a skyscraper holding his 3yo son yesterday.
Word is: Problematic custody battle with the child's mother (I read "he was denied access to his kid")
Three kids from three different men is still shamed in the communities that KW wants to participate in, and among the people that go see KW movies.
As for what she would sue over. Celebrities have some wacky publicity rights. In the US they are principally directed at using a celebrity likeness as an endorsement, but in Europe it extends also to some sort of commercial versus privacy rights analysis from what I can tell.
All she is really doing is threatening these people. She is basically saying "if you run this ad, its going to cost you an additional $50k in legal expenses." Which is a privilege the rich enjoy because its pretty hard to get frivolous lawsuit sanctions.
Normally I only think of guys having a "punchable face" -- but that photo of her definitely makes me want to start swinging.
Maybe with an open palm, since she's a girl and all.
Normally I only think of guys having a "punchable face" -- but that photo of her definitely makes me want to start swinging.
Maybe with an open palm, since she's a girl and all.
She looks like quite the twat. A lot like a friend's wife... whose cousin says of her "She's been educated beyond her intelligence".
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.