It's interesting that most middle-aged women who go on CBB are almost immediately damned, regardless of how different their personalities are. It feels like there's a totally disproportionate level of intolerance to any older women 'with a voice'.

The quieter and still-beautiful ones like Patsy are enjoyed but heaven help any older female HM with a big personality. Words like "bitter old hag", "old busybody", etc are routinely used in threads. Even the younger model types get defended on here (albeit from male FMs playing at being the 'white knight' or as an [ironically] sexist stick to beat female FMs with, e.g. "you're just jealous!"). And it's a complete contrast to the tolerance and affection shown to older male HMs. Imagine if Davidson or Busey had been women.

I've been pondering this and come up with some sketchy theories....

a) 'Mummy issues'

b) Projection/identification issues, i.e. they're the same age range as some FMs.... although this doesn't explain the hostility from male FMs

c) Society has less respect or use for women once they've stopped being pretty baubles or producing babies, so if they've outlived those traditional roles, they're going to get it in the neck for daring to be heard as well as seen.

d) All of the above.

Can someone explain to me why Ulrika winning was considered such a heinous result? I don't think I was particularly active on here at the time. Who 'should' have won?

I don't get it either, and I was posting here at the time.

I really liked her...thought she was very smart, grounded, fun, reasoned, etc.

I think because she stood up to and argued succinctly with the forum faves - the 'cool dudes' Terry Christianson (smug, self satisfied bore) and Coolio.

Ah ok. I remember Coolio was a boorish asshat, so it sort of makes sense.

Denise welch is certainly holding her own in this spat. I see hopkins Has targeted vegans, saying vegan children should be ostracised & not invited to parties. How ignorant, and another minority group. It's scary to see the reactions of some of her followers, they're as acid and cutting as she is, I suspect the majority of them are easily influenced teens who think it's cool to be a hard faced bitch.

I voted for Ulrika too, anything to stop Terry winning No, not really, I liked her.

"No one needs to agree with my views. Accepting we all think differently is the joy of life. Unless you are fat. Then clearly you're wrong."
- Katie Hopkins

I don't actually think so - I think there is a substantial amount of older and middle aged that support this far right , PC mocking - it's all wrapped up in 'freedom of speech' and I should say what I feel like saying. Sadly I think it is quite far reaching in UK society today.

Possibly. I'm going by the tweets I've seen, very childlike, insulting and littered with swear words and name calling towards anyone who voices the same opinion denise welch has of her. Denise welch obviously feels how most sane people do, that her influence over the easily led is dangerous and that the nastiness and cruelty Hopkins dishes out helps nothing and no one apart from the Hopkins bank balance.

I kind of have to agree again here. Unfortunately tweets like this will encourage people to think it's okay to refer to people in the same manner. Those that can't distinguish between what's acceptable and what's not. Those that think it's fun to be rude.

If some take what she says seriously then it will add fuel to the fire.

It's the reactions by some of her followers that bother me

Katie Hopkins like all bullies underneath her bravado is just an insecure coward with serious issues of her own !

Just like her followers on twitter.

They bring people down for other reason than to feel good about themselves.

I might have a peek. She isn't someone I would follow on Twitter by any means..

So will have a look and see what it's encouraging..

I think it's very telling of the Internet age, opinions have become anonymous. Those posting on twitter don't have to accept and own their opinions, they don't wear them as a badge. They can post their crap on the web and continue their daily life without any idea of the pain and anguish their 'opinions' can cause.
When they are ridiculing the depressed, the fat, the ginger, the scroungers, they are only reading their reactions. The written word is easier to laugh at and mock than visible pain, tears, hurt and anger.

Hopkins' twitter is one of the more interesting celebrity ones.
She's got nearly half a million followers, which is odd, because I wouldn't add someone I hated

Nothing matched her response to Stan Collymore once:
"Alternatively Stan, you could kick me in the head until I couldn't talk. I am a woman after all."

Very true.

I know this is humour and I don't see it as mocking myself - I think it's funny but at the same time sort of though provoking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_DVHUEjnuU

Yes, I doubt that any of these people would actually say these things to anyone face to face. The absolute loyalty they portray towards her is astounding, I wonder are these people really like her? Do they think the same cruel thoughts? Are people really nasty and critical but don't show it or say it and this gives them an opportunity to say how they feel? I hope not, I'd never purposely hurt anyone feelings. I'm sure fat people know they're fat without having it rammed down their throat, I'm sure a lot of them feel bad enough without having it rubbed in their face in the cruelest of ways. I just don't get how anyone condones the things Hopkins says, the suicide tweet, the Ebola tweet, the Glasgow tweet, the rape tweet, the Palestinian tweet, the mcCanns ... the list is endless, what necessity is ther to be so cold and uncaring that you will say anything to get noticed regardless of who you offend or hurt in the process.

The strange thing about the whole Katie Hopkins thing, is that I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone say that they were personally upset by anything she has said.
It's always been about being offended on behalf of someone else.

Ouch!

I think for me it's about tolerance. I believe everyone has the right to say what they want even if I don't agree with it or its not something I would say. As do people have a right to vehemently oppose what people say.

Unfortunately there are people who are easily influenced or not as educated or just don't care. And it will have an impact on them. These people also have to be tolerated too unfortunately. Maybe in time, better education and experiences they will come good.

If we didn't have tolerance there would be so many disagreements that would come to blows

Just incase this was not in reference to anyone in the forum! It was about those that are easily influenced by comments that Katie makes.. Re Twitter supporters.. Etc.

Thought I'd better clarify that before anyone takes offence having read it back!

I noticed earlier that she retweeted some praise she got for her article called '5 Types of Mum I Hate', which is lol funny in parts:


https://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/katie...102355068.html

Now THAT is a great tweet.

You don't have to be personally offended to see that something is offensive, and disagree with it.

Maybe not, but don't you think it's strange that hardly anyone ever seems to come out and say they were personally offended or upset by what she's said?

I'm not sure who people are being offended on behalf of to be honest.

Oh yes, spot on for a change