to smirk about Ulrika Johnson's predicament

[nametaken]

OK I probably am being horrible but I couldn't help but laugh hearing that people are calling Ulrika Johnson 4 X 4 - aparently it has really upset her.

As I pointed out she very, very rarely talks about her children, and only in a vague, nice way, except to describe her daughter's heart problems while she was patron of a charity for children with heart problems.
I really fail to understand why that absolutely compels UC and her ilk to call her names. Is the law or something UC? Or just a neurotic compulsion of yours?
Do you go around calling Bruce Forsyth a slag?

Elizabethh i didnt say she was a sexual prostitute, wind yer neck in love

But she'd be damned if she did, damned if she didn't universally. If she didn't give the interviews people would make up stuff about her. As they appear to be doing here. She's not a prostitute or a slag afaics yet she gets called one. Out of order imo

Ok, sorry, I was a bit mean to you there. But really, I don't get the argument that goes 'she did a nice paid-for interview about her wedding in Hello, so I absolutely have to call her a slag'.

what names dara?

and ALL celebrities give interviews! It's part of the job. Des O'Connor had his wedding in Hello. Does that make him a 'slag'?

Is my computer putting different comments on in my name?

Where did i call her a slag?

"Elizabethh i didnt say she was a sexual prostitute, wind yer neck in love"

Whatever. You used that insult to add extra viciousness because it is a very hurtful thing to call a woman.

I'd try toning down your sexism. You never know, not being spiteful about other women might make you feel better, love.

Please see my previous comment, I didnt say she was a sexual prostitute.

I said she has prostituted her family's personal life for money. There are more meanings to the pros word than just the sexual one. Please stop twisting my wor

Why is it sexist to have an opinion that differs from yours?

universally challenged are you a woman in rl?

It's sexist to have a double standard that means that women get it in the neck for things that aren't even commented upon when men do them.

I would say exactly the same about a man doing the same thing, but this thread is about UJ doing an interview for shed loads of money and then people saying we should all say "Aah bless" and having no other opinion.

Start a thread about the men if your that bothered about perceived sexism Elizabetth, and I will comment on that too!

"She must then take the comeback from that. Why is it horrid and vicious to state that?"

Because it assumes that the sexist, cruel comeback is a natural result of "being Ulrika" for want of a better term. Because it justifies those people who are choosing to deal out the "comeback". She wouldn't have to take any comeback, if people with nothing better to do, didn't choose to deal it out. It isn't necessary to be cruel about her and her children, it isn't an inevitable consequence of doing a few interviews. Many people have found it really easy to get through life being largely unaware of this woman's existence; how many children she has had by how many men has never really entered their consciousness, let alone propelled them to dole out "comeback" to the erring Ulrika. Are they all oddballs, devoid of normal responses or something?

that's a sexist question Paula

Rod Stewart, Mick Jagger
Their kids have always been public property.

And similar show it all, in your face multi partnered parents.
infatc they are both famed for it see famed not shamed

As a previous post of mine stated, I dont agree with people being nasty to/about her kids which is why I never have.She has brought them into the public domain, not me

Don't you think it's reasonable to challenge those opinions when they are based on unpleasant notions of inequality and outdated ideas about the value of women being based on their chastity?
Just as if a black celebrity gave interviews in Hello magazine, should they then have to 'take the comeback' of people making racist jokes about them? Would that be a reasonable outcome? Or should other people make it clear that this is not acceptable?
Of course people are free to have sexist opinions, but they can also expect to be pulled up on them, and it would be reasonable if they thought a bit about why they think it is OK to sneer at a woman for behaviour that is considered completely unremarkable in a man.
Actually, if a man was father to four children, and at least one of the mothers had pissed off forever leaving him with a baby with a severe heart defect, he'd be canonised, not criticised.

i dont actually see where Universally challenged has been calling UJ names. I have read the prostitute comment, which was, as I read it, a turn of phrase, and NOT suggesting she was a prostitute.

I think a few of you are being overly harsh, and quite unpleasant to universally challenged, for merely having a different opinion to your selves.

It is not sexist, to comment on a woman, on a thread which is about a woman!

Stop the stone throwing, just because you have a difference of opinion.

good heavens!

I would say she talks less about her kids than most famous people. They are 'brought into the public domain' primarily simply because she is famous. She is famous because being on TV is her job, and it makes you famous. It also pays quite well, which I imagine is useful when you have a big family.

yes of course he would dara, cos we are all so stupid and shallow arent we?

I have a friend !!

Thanks for taking the comment as it was said Susie

"" Actually, if a man was father to four children, and at least one of the mothers had pissed off forever leaving him with a baby with a severe heart defect, he'd be canonised, not criticised.""

i wholly agree with you there Dara, bloody good point.

I do infact agree with all you have been saying, just not why its directed at one particular poster.

susie cutie
universally has been vitriolic and vile on here

We drove Paul Yates to her death then canonised the man who tormented her for so many years after all.