Just in case you were suffering under the delusion that a highly respected multiply Oscar-nominated (and one-time Oscar-winning) actress was safe from having her morality decried and her parenting abilities questioned based solely on the fact that she has slept with more than one man, Judith Woods at the Telegraph is here to set you straight:
Three babies by three fathers – will it be third time lucky for Calamity Kate Winslet?
The Oscar-winner’s enthusiasm for marriage is surely not shared by her children
Kate Winslet is pregnant again, and I blame Leonardo DiCaprio.
No, he’s not the father (this time…), but remember that scene in Titanic where his character, Jack, is about to slip off into the icy Atlantic and bids Rose adieu by reassuring her she will live and go on to have lots of babies? Well, he missed one crucial detail; the dang dying fool only forgot to specify that they weren’t supposed to be by different fathers.
Which is possibly why Winslet, 37, is having a baby with her newest husband, Sir Richard Branson’s nephew, Ned Rocknroll.
The actress, who won an Oscar for her splendid performance in The Reader, always has a baby – but just the one, mind – with every husband, to keep it fair.
…
What her daughter, in particular, makes of Winslet’s revolving-door relationships can only be guessed at. But to the outside world, Kate, it just looks tacky.
And the abuse continues from there, and gets even more vile. Er, I mean, the appropriate condemnation of a dirty dirty whore who shamelessly shoves her slutty slutting around in our faces reaches a feverish and not at all psychosexual climax.
I hadn’t thought to wonder if Winslet was being tacky, because I find myself considering her sex life approximately never. Silly me. I must remember to continually remind myself that unless I and all other women can measure up to a cartoonish and impossible 1950s ideal of chastity and modesty, up to pretending that we have no interest in doing that, we have failed as ladies.
h/t @scottEweinberg
Oh, she’s not just slut-shaming Kate; she’s divorce-shaming her, too! After all, we’re supposed to stay married to whomever we cast our lot in with first, no matter what. <- said the motherfucking 19th century. Grrr.
Women who get divorced are sluts, aren’t they?
I suppose they might be forgiven if they entered a nunnery. But probably not.
no nunnery will take a divorced woman!
Not being very familiar with British publications, I find myself wondering: Is the Telegraph considered a legit newspaper? Its Web site seems to have lots of actual news coverage and not merely tabloid celeb gossip . . . but really, who but the trashiest of catty, TMZ-ish gossip rags would publish something so downright rude?
Honestly, having read this news the other day, the only head-scratching that I engaged in was wondering why on earth this guy is named “Ned Rocknroll.” Nothing else occurred to me because, well, Kate Winslet’s love life is none of my damn business. (Not that I haven’t daydreamed at some points that it could be, but that’s another story . . .)
The Telegraph was once a serious newspaper; these days it’s only tradition that stops it being regarded as a high-end tabloid like the Express (“house prices!”) and the Mail (“immigrants!”). (Which are of course completely unlike the low-end tabloids, the Sun and the Star, in that they don’t feature bare breasts.)
Like the other high-end tabloids, its political stance is a parody of elderly right-wing nostalgia.
Did you ever see the old “Yes Minister” sketch about who reads the papers?
“The Morning Star is read by people who think the country should be run by another country, the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.”
What RogerBW said. The Telegraph clings to a veneer of respectability, unlike, say, the Daily Mail. I wouldn’t have bothered posting something like this if it had appeared in the Mail, because everyone knows the Mail isn’t fit to wrap fish in. But this piece appearing the Telegraph is a story in itself… although soon I suspect I’ll have to start ignoring the Telegraph just as I ignore the Mail.
Another news organization going “New York Post-al”.
Thanks to you and Roger. And of course, it occurs to me that I should have said, “Not being familiar with most British publications,” as I have a subscription to The Economist and read the F-T with some regularity. But they don’t really bother with celebrity “news.”
I always find these exercises in ritualized public shaming to be extremely distasteful, to say the least. It always goes something like this: a celebrity says or does something that is not accepted by someone who kicks up a media shitstorm, until finally browbeating the celebrity into giving a half-assed, insincere apology, privately drawing the lesson to be more discrete. After the apology, the media pats itself on the head for being such stalwart guardians of proper morality.
It’s hard to imagine Winslet apologizing for getting married and having children. Though I do look forward to her response, which I imagine will be suitably kick-ass.
The shaming isn’t about her getting married and having children, though. It’s about getting divorced and remarrying. I’d also be surprised if Winslett issues an apology except in sarcastic form, given that the article seems to originate from the 1950s.
How does that apply here? Kate Winslet hasn’t been shamed. Hundreds of commenters are supporting her, and attacking the writer. And if Winslet did want to apologize, what would she apologize for, other than living her life?
I do agree with one thing you said, though: The article is extremely distateful.
It doesn’t apply because the story didn’t gain traction, but the intent was there. As far as Winslett apologizing, I don’t know, how did women apologize before divorce became socially accepted?
They didn’t.
So, throughout history, there has never been a single woman who has ever been browbeaten by her disapproving family into apologizing for her and her husband divorcing? Allow me to raise a skeptical brow.
I don’t know if that happened. But if it did, do you think those were sincere apologies? And even if they were, that’s entirely different from the *public* apology you seemed to think was coming down the pike.
But there’s a good reason it didn’t gain traction. Divorce has been socially accepted for decades. When you say “It always goes something like this,” you’re implying that Kate Winslet is going to follow the usual pattern and apologize. The only people who think she did something immoral are this writer and a few hardcore traditionalists. Maybe she wrote the article to appeal to the coveted “submissive wife” demographic.
Eh, what can I say, I resorted to hyperbole. I guess that I’m sort of disappointed with the hard-core traditionalists though: they are usually more savvy than that when it comes to picking and framing the target of their outrage and pick on people who are defenseless or whose so-called crimes are more widely disreputable.
And I don’t know if the “different kids from different fathers” line of reproach is entirely dead: it’s used to blame black people for their poverty and other forms of social deprivation, sometimes by affluent black people:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/cosby.asp
But Kate Winslett is an affluent white woman admired by millions, and that does afford a significant level of protection.
It’s heartening, though, that most of the comments agree with you, and not Ms Woods. As one poster commented, no-one shames Rod Stewart for having eight children with five women, so why are we attacking Kate Winslet? It’s no-one’s business but her own.
I find it particularly offputting that Judith Woods is making insinuations about Kate Winslet’s daughter’s feelings. That is completely unacceptable.
My comment disappeared, for some reason. Anway – the article is truly awful, and Judith Woods should be ashamed of herself – it’s none of her business, and I was also particularly irritated by her speculation on Kate’s daughter’s feelings – insinuating that she (the daughter) should somehow be ashamed of her mother.
What is heartening, though, is that the vast majority of the comments on the Telegraph site agree with MaryAnn and the commenters here.
ETA: My first comment has reappeared – sorry for the double post. Odd!
Unfortunately, the goal isn’t that you agree or not, its that you generate revenue by watching some ads and buying newspapers. The telegraph and Judith Woods don’t even have to really believe what they say, they just have to get people talking.
in that sense its depressing that we are even talking about it, since we are validating the vileness as worthy of discussion.
However, MaryAnn, you’ve done a great job of talking about this without validating it, and yes, Isobel_A, that is heartening.
I’m more worried about what the kids think of their mum becoming Mrs. Rocknroll.
She won’t, though. She’ll still be Winslet. We don’t have to bother with the name-taking if we don’t want to.
*whew!*
Dr. Mrs. The Monarch is bad enough. It just gets so unwieldy.
I don’t like bumping old topics, but Winslet took a jab at Woods in next month’s “Glamour” — “Why should I apologise for falling in love?” Felt appropriate.
http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/02/kate-winslet-acting-is-so-bloody-scary-sometimes-i-think-i-cant-do-this-4247675/
Good for her. Sucks that this even needs to be said, however.
I have no problem with bumping up old topics, as long as new comments are relevant (as yours certainly is).
3 husbands, 3 kids, her being a slut isn’t the issue, it’s what these skanks are doing to the kids that is the issue
And what is she doing to her kids? What is she doing to her kids that their fathers have not also done?
Also: No woman is a slut. This is just a way to disparage women who do not conform to the notion of female sexuality that some people put about. One that impossible to conform to, and one that never ever applies to men.
So you can fuck right off with your shit.