Hilary Mantel makes a good point

[juneau]

She shouldn't have said it, since it's bitchy and uncalled for (and I actually find HM rather odd, if I'm honest), but after a good couple of years in the media spotlight I struggle to think of one thing the Duchess of Cambridge thinks or believes in. She never gives an opinion, she barely speaks, she just looks pretty and smiles.

russians sorry but the thinness is very much part of the image constructed by the Middletons to find favour with the Press and public opinion. In the run up to the wedding the Daily Mail and it's ilk had a field day with the dietary plans of the Middletons and implicit was that "waitey Katie" had somehow been less than ideal but the new thinner wedding Princess was. I have no idea whether Kate's pre and post wedding BMI is healthy or not, but I am pretty sure Kate was never anything anyone would regard as fat, in fact looked like a healthy athletic young woman, and post wedding she is thinner, and that is something that has been worked at. I think HM was right to highlight that aspect of the construct, as relevant as her being plastic, in fact possibly more so given the pressures on our young people to be, yes, painfully thin. It might have been nice if Kate had chosen as Jessica Ennis says she is proud to be, a fit and athletic role model, instead of modelling herself on fashion models.

Russians are you saying KM isn't thin? She's a lot thinner than she was before she officially became Waity Katie. I personally would describe her as painfully thin, because of her change in weight since the tabloids first became interested in her - - although agree with pofaced that it's subjective (I have been described as fat and slim depending on who's doing the observing).

Agree with fillyjonk's interpretation of the essay.

And body weight is the most important aspect of femaleness in the popular press- and other places (there was a strong suggestion that HM was not entitled to express opinions because she is perceived to be fat), So KM' s thinness is crucial to any discussion of how royalty are presented in the press. You only have to think of Sarah Fergusson- presented as fat and therefore out of control generally, and compare her to the thin, contained, controlled KM

Exactly - it's part of what is required as a 'good' female royal.

For women, success in a profession which involves being in the public eye means that extreme thinness is a prerequisite. Modelling, acting, broadcasting, (in fact most branches of the entertainment industry) politics (to an increasing extent), and of course, being married to an alpha male. Marrying royalty encompasses most of the above.

I suspect KM regards it as a fair pay-off for the rewards involved. All she has to do really is be an actor. She doesn't even have to be a good one, just conform to a particular set of rules in public, and come on, what percentage of her time is actually spent 'on display'? And keep thin of course. Just like any Hollywood actress or 'celeb'.

And body weight is the most important aspect of femaleness in the popular press

Isn't this fascinating? I do think that every time someone starts a 'fatty-bashing' thread on MN they would do well to ponder this condundrum. Why is this the case? Is it about control, the necessity for women not to occupy too much space, the fear of women who appears sturdy or strong, a masculine need to be physcially dominant, or the conflation of self-denial and suffering with femininity?

Uncontrolled female power has always been considered dangerous. Body weight is about control and containment.

In the Daily Mail's arsenal it is clearly an issue of wanting women to be defined by a conservative (small c) male agenda. Women are there to look pretty and take care of the house and children, anything else and they are fair game for criticism, and indeed Cancer, which is of course what happens when women stray from the ideal. I hesitate to admit to just having a guilty peek at the most viewed English language newspaper website and certainly don't want to instigate more hits but Carole Middleton and her business have come in for it today. From hero, when looking pretty and thin and discreet mother of princess, to zero, exploitative witch when running her business (except doesn't the Dad do that too? he is missing from the headline of course)

To be fair to the mail, once you get older you are allowed to be matronly

The Now Show on Radio 4 " If you haven't read the article by Hilary Mantel, and clearly David Cameron hasn't, you should or you will speak absolute crap about it" In fact lots of DM and HM joke.......

Some people are allowed to be buxom.

The Now Show was great last night - v. funny!

I noticed the Carole Middleton stuff in the DM today. This just goes to prove everything HM was saying. KM plays by the rules and gives them no material so they go for her mother, who has the temerity to be a businesswoman. Someone has gone to a very great deal of trouble to track their supply chain to this extent, which goes to show how desparate the media is to dig up ' dirt on this family.

I used to work for a UK sportwear manufacturer which was regarded as a leading light in the Ethical Trade Initiative and had which an entire department devoted to checking working conditions in their sub-contracted (and sub-sub-sub contracted ) factories in the Far East and South America. They had a rigid progamme of inspection and training (which I helped to administer) which was compulsory for all their business partners. Some still slipped through the net, and children would be discovered doing piecework at home alongside their mothers, who were legitimate employees. It is almost impossible to ensure 100% compliance, especially if there are 600+ factories and 30 countries involved.

The Midds are far too busy on their social climbing strategy to check their supply chains. Buying the right house and furnishing it in the right way, arranging the right holidays, being seen in the right places, having the right friends, wearing the right clothes, getting your hair and nails done in top salons is all very time consuming............

That's quite neat, then ... If you're concerned about the ethics in your supply chain but can't justify a whole department, just convince the Daily Mail you've got your womanly priorities wrong and they'll check it for you!

Lapsed, sounds like you should mane that UK sportwear manufacturer which was regarded as a leading light in the Ethical Trade Initiative. They deserve a plug for the effort, surely :)

The papers certainly seem to strongly dislike the Middleton women. Some of their articles are quite insidiously done - pro Kate on the face of it but leaving their comments columns to do the savaging. Why such antipathy from the press?

All very time consuming Copthall and all so, so wearying too. I can't imagine worrying about any of that in a million years, given their family unit (which seems strong) and all their money. It all appears so insecure.

Claig what an entirely spurious analogy, what had the media got to do with global warming?

Marsh, don't get me started on that. I am an expert on the subject!

Tall poppies, Yellowtip! Tall female poppies, in particular.

I'm procrastinating giving way to my inner amateur expert here. Forgive me.

In order to maintain our personal sense of rightness, we tend to adopt a Just World fallacy (everything's as it should be.) We commonly believe that, in a 'Just World', greater privilege is given to the more deserving. If we find it isn't, we believe karma will get the greedy fuckers in the end and we'll give it a hand. We tend to get very angry at things/people who threaten our Just World.

If our Just World also happens to involve a Natural Order Of Things in which women know their place, then we'll naturally get extra angry at privileged women who aren't deserving: they threaten at least two of the conditions for our world to be as it should.

If we had to accept that normal women can make millions of their own, while raising a happy & successful family, we'd get a very nasty case of cognitive dissonance. We don't want that. One way to avoid it is to convince ourselves she isn't normal / isn't a woman / isn't a millionaire / cheated / hasn't got a happy family.

I love human nature

I have never heard of the 'Just World Fallacy', but it is fascinating and ties in with what I said about the need for people to have idols and to believe in goodness. People want justice and many feel the attacks on Kate are unjust and that is why there has been this reaction to the way the Daily Mail reported the story.

People know that there is corruption at the top, but they collude in the decption that those at the top are good. They can't believe that they might lie about climate catastrophe etc., which was why Climategate shocked them.

As the sociologist said

'Belief in a just world functions as a sort of "contract" with the world regarding the consequences of behavior. This allows people to plan for the future and engage in effective, goal-driven behavior.

Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a just world is crucially important for people to maintain for their own well-being. However, people are confronted daily with evidence that the world is not just: people suffer without apparent cause. Lerner explained that people use strategies to eliminate threats to their belief in a just world.'

It is similar to the belief in heaven and that a better world exists. If people saw the true reality of the lies and deception that they are subject to, many would despair.

That is why they react when idols are knocked.

And that is why people are so adamant that there are no conspiracies, and why some people find it hard to believe what Oscar Pretorius is accused of. People create heroes and invest them with the qualities that they believe in - be they politicians or film stars of celebrities, and their worldview is shattered when they find out that appearance was not real.

Today we read about the La Repubblica reports about why the Pope may have resigned. But millions of good people will not want to believe that, they prefer the story that the first resignation of a Pope in office for 600 years was due to ill health.

Otherwise another idol would crash to the ground. But the people at the top know exactly how the world runs and they know it is not a 'just world'. They know that is a fallacy, but they use its power to con the people.

There are of course conspiracies or at least big cover up by people who have vested interests in things. However global warming is not one of them.

pofacedplot, wait and see. It took years to reveal Hillsborough and Savile, but some people knew it all along.

They changed the term from "global warming" to "climate change" when teh figures revealed that there was no warming. Don't put anything past them; it's not a "just world" unfortunately.