Indeed. But there has been an idealised or preferred family type. That's what is slipping away, and I don't think the Right can do much to prevent it.

If you look at society reflected through literature (a good yardstick) throughout the nineteenth century you actually find that the 'idealised' families are departed from on a very regular basis, from Austen to Hardy. And often in an affectionate way (OK, not Hardy for that bit). Look at Diary of a Nobody, or Jerome K Jerome. You can't take an idealisation as truth, surely? It exists separately within a constructed paradigm of symbolic understanding.

A lot of people don't read the book, they just watch the TV adaptation (so to speak) and even then concentrate more on the pretty costumes and Colin Firth staggering out of the pond more than the rather uncomfortable reality depicted.

In Pride and Prejudice, a family is auctioning off its daughters in order to stay afloat.

In Nicholas Nickleby (and this was the one that always shocked me when I realised the implications back in my GCSE days) a school acts as a death camp for unwanted children. And the villain pimps out his niece more out of shits and giggles than anything else.

As for Hardy...best not even go there. But this goes over the heads of so many, and all we get fed back is 'wonderful stories so romantic, lovely dresses'.

_________________
Ten seconds... the pain begins.

Fifteen seconds... you can't breathe.

Twenty seconds... you give up and turn off the Jeremy Vine show.

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

I'm liking the accompany picture.



I don't know about Mark Large I think it should say 'Mark Extra Large.'

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

will.i.aint? Come on tom_uk, own up.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

I worry the Middletons really do believe they are royalty

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... yalty.html


Awful & mean piece.... she is getting an absolute kicking in the comments. Totally misjudged her readership.









etc.

From the sound of the title, that article wrote itself.

Haven't the Middletons had a good go at the tabloids for intrusion? Glad that the Mail has been brave enough to ignore the chilling effect of Leveson on their freedom.

Remind me. Which tabloid kept referring to Pippa's arse as "Her Royal Hotness"?

_________________
Sick Left-wing Zealot.

No Tulisa, this WASN'T a victory for girl power

More victim-blaming, anti-woman crap.


Perhaps she ought to have worn a girdle. And is that really what she assured us?


It wasn't "don't get made, get even". It was: don't let yourself be shamed into silence. That's far from "the ultimate victory" — it doesn't change the fact that the tape was made public.


Note: this is not addressed to the ex-boyfriend. But as we all know, it's naïve to expect a man to respect his girlfriend or ask for her consent. It's naïve to argue that other men should refuse to watch the tape on the basis that it is stolen property. It's not men's fault, they can't help it: [insert some bollocks about being 'hard-wired' here]. A woman is responsible for protecting herself from shame, and if that means forgoing the thrill of exhibitionism, the pleasure of any kind of non-procreative sex, then that's a price worth paying. This is old-fashioned puritanism.


Hundreds of thousands of couples get a kick out of filming themselves having sex "in a pornographic style". (What the fuck does that mean? Shit background music? Dialogue in Swedish?)


See, Platell is an equal opportunity pessimist. She thinks as little of men as she does of women. Men don't want real intimacy, they just want to fuck us over. Don't expect them to keep their word or give too much credence to the idea of consent. Men are incapable of behaving responsibly, so let's not even try to get them to do so. All that's left for us is to keep our legs closed:



So a woman who has oral sex is dirty? Being seen to have sex is "humiliating"? Some fine slut-shaming there.

The cunts in this case are the ex-boyfriend, plus anyone who watched the video knowing that Tulisa hadn't consented to its being made public. They're the only ones who should be ashamed.

She claims that the real message Tulisa should have been trying to teach young girls (why is that her responsibility anyway?) is that with digital technology and the internet they should be more carefull what they do and who they do it with.

Well personaly I'd say the theft, distribution, embarrassment, legal costs and media gossip surrounding this tape is going to be lesson enough for many young X Factor watching girls.
No doubt plenty will have learned something from it, I'm sure there are many who would think twice now before doing the same thing now they have seen what can happen.

This clearly has not occoured to Platell.

Her attitude and choice of words in this piece of crap speak of a woman who is deeply unsatisfied herself, just not getting any more, or feels too guilty and dirty to pursue her own sexual desires and therefor resents any woman who does.

Classic signs.

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"

That or the batteries in her well-used electric toothbrush have finally given up and she's got nothing to clean her cobwebs away, the ratty-faced old bitch that she is. Or, as my mother calls her, "one of the most grotesque reasons alive as to why some women should be shot in the face with a porcupine".

_________________
You couldn't make it up...that's what Littledick's for!

An article on the Tomlinson family in the Guardian includes this:



Her 2009 column is here, if you can stand it: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169168/AMANDA-PLATELL-A-disturbing-death-tawdry-lust-fame-.html

This week it's Amanda Holden's turn to get a kicking from Platell. Apparently Platell believes that the musical Jesus Christ Super Star trivialises the Christian religion. And just to prove her point she comes out with this gem of a quote.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z21CxvTO00

I must admit I've never seen the musical but judging by how many people went to see it when it was originally staged in the West End it clearly appealed to a very wide audience. Far from trivialising Christianity I think ITV have been quite brave to put on such a show during peak times in their schedule.

Platell also seems to be under the impression that the law on Gay marriages has already been passed after being pushed through the commons. I think she will find that the government is still consulting on the proposals but why lets the facts get in the way of a good rant.

_________________
www.newshuddlines.blogspot.com

FFS, even people back in the seventies (when the show as first staged) were more rational than Platell is today.

Does she actualy think this is a new show? Does she not know that it's been around for years, that it's a bit late to get pissy about it now?

_________________
"Now get those trousers off before someone dies!"