This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/katie-hopkins-apprentice-tiger-mother

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Katie Hopkins, misguided tiger mother Katie Hopkins, misguided tiger mother
(7 months later)
There are lots of things that baffle and perplex me, so it's not fair to pick on ex-Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins as being specially baffling and perplexing. Still, there she is, propelled by murky forces to the inexplicable status of "cultural figure", somehow becoming someone on whom the well-informed Briton is expected to have an opinion – doing I'm a Celebrity, appearing on Question Time, and yesterday offering her thunderingly terrible advice on parenting in the Mail.There are lots of things that baffle and perplex me, so it's not fair to pick on ex-Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins as being specially baffling and perplexing. Still, there she is, propelled by murky forces to the inexplicable status of "cultural figure", somehow becoming someone on whom the well-informed Briton is expected to have an opinion – doing I'm a Celebrity, appearing on Question Time, and yesterday offering her thunderingly terrible advice on parenting in the Mail.
"I won't let my children play with friends that I deem beneath them," said Hopkins, coming on like a tiger mother of the south-west. Whether her judgment is really to be trusted is arguable, given that this piece marks her cosying up to a newspaper that has previously called her a "serial seductress", run a photo of her involved in an "outdoor romp" and published the claim that "she doesn't have a maternal bone in her body". If one of Hopkins's children were to come home with a wedgie, Hopkins would probably seek out the culprit, invite them round for tea, and instruct her own offspring to make their pants elastic more accessible."I won't let my children play with friends that I deem beneath them," said Hopkins, coming on like a tiger mother of the south-west. Whether her judgment is really to be trusted is arguable, given that this piece marks her cosying up to a newspaper that has previously called her a "serial seductress", run a photo of her involved in an "outdoor romp" and published the claim that "she doesn't have a maternal bone in her body". If one of Hopkins's children were to come home with a wedgie, Hopkins would probably seek out the culprit, invite them round for tea, and instruct her own offspring to make their pants elastic more accessible.
But it seems it's not her children's happiness she's got at heart, it's their academic future: "I target children that I think will be a good influence and curtail friendships with children I think will drag them down." A good influence is child who does all their homework, fills up their star chart and doesn't have "a Nintendo". Oh, and they have to have the right name: "At the risk of sounding snobbish, I also favour children who have good old-fashioned Victorian names such as George, Henry and Victoria." She does sound snobbish, of course, but she also sounds a bit racist – no Nasreens or Kwames are getting through that selection process.But it seems it's not her children's happiness she's got at heart, it's their academic future: "I target children that I think will be a good influence and curtail friendships with children I think will drag them down." A good influence is child who does all their homework, fills up their star chart and doesn't have "a Nintendo". Oh, and they have to have the right name: "At the risk of sounding snobbish, I also favour children who have good old-fashioned Victorian names such as George, Henry and Victoria." She does sound snobbish, of course, but she also sounds a bit racist – no Nasreens or Kwames are getting through that selection process.
What was Hopkins thinking? Comments below the line and on Twitter responded to her as the grotesque she was edited to be, rather than the "caring mother" she claimed she was. Being a grotesque is a living – a comparatively good one – and I can half-admire the application with which Hopkins has pursued it, while wondering pityingly at how her poor children will feel when they realise they've been recruited to the supporting cast. Good luck getting invited to any parties now your mum's pulled this stunt, kiddos. Sorry about all the squashed cake and novelty erasers you're missing.What was Hopkins thinking? Comments below the line and on Twitter responded to her as the grotesque she was edited to be, rather than the "caring mother" she claimed she was. Being a grotesque is a living – a comparatively good one – and I can half-admire the application with which Hopkins has pursued it, while wondering pityingly at how her poor children will feel when they realise they've been recruited to the supporting cast. Good luck getting invited to any parties now your mum's pulled this stunt, kiddos. Sorry about all the squashed cake and novelty erasers you're missing.
But even though Hopkins is terrifying, the impulse she describes isn't entirely alien. Most parents have the odd protective pang to control their child's social life; it's just that part of being a parent is giving your child the opportunity to form their own affections and either make their own mistakes, or show up adult bias for the empty prejudice it is. Not that children are quite as ignorant of class as Hopkins seems to fear. Some markers of status can be read before children even get on the Oxford reading tree: who wears what clothes, who goes to which (if any) clubs, who's got some region in their accent and who's got the smooth nowhere tones of middle-classness.But even though Hopkins is terrifying, the impulse she describes isn't entirely alien. Most parents have the odd protective pang to control their child's social life; it's just that part of being a parent is giving your child the opportunity to form their own affections and either make their own mistakes, or show up adult bias for the empty prejudice it is. Not that children are quite as ignorant of class as Hopkins seems to fear. Some markers of status can be read before children even get on the Oxford reading tree: who wears what clothes, who goes to which (if any) clubs, who's got some region in their accent and who's got the smooth nowhere tones of middle-classness.
Kids are machines for noticing and sorting, and they notice and sort themselves more voraciously than anything else. All a parent has to do is lay the groundwork of bigotry, and a reasonably astute child will do the rest. That's what parents should fear most: not seeing their offspring "dragged down into the quagmire of underperforming children", but seeing their talent for generosity, play and kindness destroyed by the dead-inside demands of grown-up snobbery. Maybe we should have a playdate, Katie. My children are messy and late. One of them's named after a bird. I guarantee that you would hate them, but your kids might still have enough of their gift for friendship left that they could work out how to get along.Kids are machines for noticing and sorting, and they notice and sort themselves more voraciously than anything else. All a parent has to do is lay the groundwork of bigotry, and a reasonably astute child will do the rest. That's what parents should fear most: not seeing their offspring "dragged down into the quagmire of underperforming children", but seeing their talent for generosity, play and kindness destroyed by the dead-inside demands of grown-up snobbery. Maybe we should have a playdate, Katie. My children are messy and late. One of them's named after a bird. I guarantee that you would hate them, but your kids might still have enough of their gift for friendship left that they could work out how to get along.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.