Again, with apologies for length 
Where are these young men's (Andrew, Dapper) views of women formed. In the home - by women - who are vocally negative about other women.
Young men like this love their mums - but so often ONLY their mums. Other women are not viewed in the same way. Where do they learn that?
It's an interesting debate, especially after contemporary Jess's 'massive slags' remark, but I'm not at all sure their views are formed in the home, more likely a combination of being cherished unreservedly by family and bantz with their ladz gangs I would think. It makes me sad and angry that they come out with remarks protecting their mother, grandmother, probably sister if they have any, and yet they fail to join up that thinking that the women they massively disrespect are someone else's beloved relative. I doubt they'd talk like this infront of their family and so can see where Ann was coming from by reminding them that their mother and grandmother would be watching - less about what they were doing and more that they were showing that side of themselves usually concealed. She may have gone coy for a moment when Andrew changed her sheets, but the scales soon dropped from her eyes when he revealed more of his character. I'd think most of us have a more guarded side that we show to the older generation or to colleagues compared to how we are with our friends, but suspect Ann is the same whoever she's with and would like everyone to follow that principle.
I was intrigued by Daniel's soppiness over his girlfriend, his public proposal and her very understated and tearful presentation. She's a topless and nude glamour model. I wonder how he feels about what other men will be thinking and saying about her in that role? Jess is in the same situation, how they treat her to her face i.e. the real person and how they would view and speak about her behind her back or when looking at her photos i.e. woman as object.
It's like some kind of morphing of Madonna Whore categorisation where women should be regarded as one or the other, unless you know them, in which case there can be a separation of professional images from private person. A bit like Daniel's insistence that Dapper Laughs is someone else altogether despite the fact that not only does he write and perform the content, his behaviour echoes the same when he's being 'himself' 
I am shocked by the willingness of many so-called feminists on here to voice support for a woman whose views are so at odds with feminism
But that's the nub of the problem isn't it?
There's a very big mirror needed round here.
I'm not a so called anything though if I had to regard my beliefs as anything prescribed, it would be humanist.
Personally I don't regard anyone as one dimensional and look to fathom out and separate their good and bad qualities and try to understand what drives and motivates them. An example of that would be Ann's attitudes towards war and abortion. A committed Christian who voted in support of the Iraq war on the basis that the amount of death and destruction caused would (in her opinion) ultimately prevent greater death and destruction. She's anti killing and anti abortion unless the mother's life is under threat So IMO she's considered and worked out what she agrees with, rather than slavishly following someone else's teaching, that is what I would support rather than the conclusions she reached, both of which are at odds with my own thinking.
Blimey!!!! And Andrew is called stoopid!
Not even an idiot could interpret that as criticism of the Church or even Ann
Twice remarks like this since I posted last night 