Poorer people take children out for dinner, causes great upset to Sunday Times Style columnist

This post was written by Guest Post on November 30, 2010
Posted Under: Uncategorized

This is a guest post by Eloise who blogs at Letters from The City.

So we recently had the Tory lord Howard Flight, a typical cash for peerage lord appointed after raising millions for the conservatives, who has had to apologise over his vile remarks that poor people on benefits will have more incentives to ‘breed’.

so i suppose i should not have been too surprised yesterday to read something equally as repugnant in the ‘style’ supplement of the sunday times*.

as anyone has ever read ‘style’ will know, there is a ‘table talk’ section where the homophobic, imperialist, racist a.a.gillwrites a restaurant review. i absolutely despise gill, who last year wrote about how he had shot a baboon in order to “get a sense of what it might be like to kill someone”.

this week however, no a.a.gill as he is ‘away’, probably out shooting welsh people. instead, readers were treated to a patronising review of nando’s fast food chain by kate spicer, who describes herself as a neurotic, alienated food ponce (sorry – no links to the article thanks to the delightful paywall).

hmm, so far so mediocre, but something made me carry on reading the article to the end, where after describing the various celebrities that have been issued with a nando’s black card, enabling them to eat there for free all the time, spicer finishes her article with the words “meanwhile, back at shepard’s bush, we sat next to two mean-looking pram-faced girls, feeding themselves and their litter of kids”.

because to rich people who think they are better than everyone else, what could be more insulting than young mums going out for supper with their children. how dare they? shoo, back on your second-hand couch with your iceland pizzas, plebs, before we catch your poverty. poor people don’t eat for pleasure, stupid! they feed, like the bloodsucking vermin they are, yah.

i’m sorry spicer would rather be eating with prince harry, who has been seen eating in nando’s with his “chelsea chums”. i can only imagine prince harry would have been described as ‘dining’ rather than “feeding himself”.

and “litter of kids”? really? young mums get quite enough abuse and misplaced hatred without yet another attack (from another woman).

this repulsive remark, and that of lord flight, is symptomatic of the conservative distain for people less well off than they are, and is of little surprise when coupled with their regressive and dangerous policies.

also in ‘style’ this week was an article aimed at women on how “tending to our lady gardens just became a full-time job”[sic]. i am sick of articles telling women how we should shave, wax, dye and now jewel encrust our vaginas – because they are so repellent otherwise? i’ve blogged on this before, and it makes me angry that the pornification of women has got to the point that young girls are embarrassed about their vaginas looking ‘weird’, and women say they would be too embarrassed to have sex if they hadn’t waxed. couple this article with one on ‘fat freezing’ (even the woman writing the article said it was horrible!) and you end up with a pretty nasty supplement.

not my style.

*disclaimer – it was not my copy, i don’t buy the times!

Like this article? Print it, email it, Stumble, Facebook and Tweet it:
  • Print
  • email
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
  • Live
Share

Reader Comments

Yavorskijj

The only problems I have with this post are the following:

a) AA Gill is actually an excellent writer, brilliant reviewer of restaurants, and probably more valuable than everybody who regularly contributes to the Grauniad or Indie put together. So I don’t mind if he makes jokes about lesbians, or enjoys executing disgusting primates. In fact, both incidents were pretty amusing. His wilful transgressiveness, and the outrage it sparks from people like you, is straightforwardly brilliant.

b) Calling someone a dyke, or a fag, or whatever else, doesn’t in fact mean that said person is scared of, or hates, homosexuals. I’m genuinely fucking sick of the coining of these cuntish terms-see also ‘Islamophobia’-which seek to classify anybody who isn’t full of praise (which is in fact what is really meant by the constant reverential references to ‘tolerance’ employed by left-liberals) as somehow irrational, mentally ill, ridden with pathos etc, through the simultaneously retarded yet devilishly effective suffixing of words with ‘phobia’.

c) Worry About More Important Thing, Please.

#1 
Written By Yavorskijj on November 30th, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Yavorskijj

Also, its now abundantly clear that women have straightforwardly and unequivocally won the battle of the sexes. Surely it isn’t too unreasonable for y’all to throw the vanquished hordes of males a lil’ bit of a bone every now and then (so to speak) by way of a spot of gash-waxing…? I mean, we’re pretty much emasculated enough already, without women also feeling the need to appropriate our awful hairiness and lack of grooming-related sensibility (what’s left of it, that is).

#2 
Written By Yavorskijj on November 30th, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Laura

Don’t feed the trolls

#3 
Written By Laura on November 30th, 2010 @ 3:57 pm

Agree with Laura here

#4 
Written By Reuben on November 30th, 2010 @ 11:49 pm

Add a Comment

required, use real name
required, will not be published
optional, your blog address

Please leave these two fields as-is:

Protected by Invisible Defender. Showed 403 to 464,735 bad guys.