STYLE

Shut Up Judith Woods, Kate Winslet's Pregnancy Is None Of Your Business

11/07/2013 20:48 | Updated 22 May 2015

Okay, so we try not to comment on other media's commentators (this all gets a bit insular otherwise) but is Judith Woods' Daily Telegraph blog today for real?

The one where she gives Kate Winslet the mother of all hard times because she's having a third baby by her third husband Ned RocknRoll?

kate winslet

The one where she blames Leonardo DiCaprio because he told Winslet's character at the end of Titanic to go and have babies? Yeah, that's right, HER CHARACTER.

But listen, let's go through Woods' column. Maybe she just sat down and thought, "how can I piss off every woman who doesn't hate other women?" and came up with this. Yeah, well, mission accomplished lady.

We'll start at the start. In reference to blaming DiCaprio for his "have lots of babies" end-of-Titanic instruction, Woods shrieks:

"He missed one crucial detail; the dang dying fool only forgot to specify that they weren't supposed to be by different fathers."

I want to beat this sentence to death with my straighteners. Or Emmeline Pankhurst's cold, dead hand. Also, what's this "supposed to be" guff?

Then she does a sort of compliment about Winslet being good at her job but ruins it because she hates women getting married more than once:

"The actress, who won an Oscar for her splendid performance in The Reader, always has a baby – but just the one, mind – with every husband, to keep it fair."

Oooh, snide! Take that Winslet. What's your problem, Woods? What difference does it make to you? Also, this "just one, mind" bit - should she have had more by each husband? Argh, confusing.

But the confusion doesn't stop there. Writing about Winslet and RocknRoll, she goes on:

"They married in New York last December and now that she's announced her pregnancy, it's time to play Happy Families. Again."

Yep, because they should welcome the news miserably. "Hey kids, we're having a baby! But be sad, okay?"

Then, there's this weird bit where she drags Ulrika Jonsson into the mix and blames her for "Broken Britain" (uh, vomit), talks about Jim Threapleton being Winslet's "nice-bloke starter husband" (how does she know? He might be a complete tool) before easing into a nice spiteful conclusion with:

"Marriage is wonderful, but it's hard work, made all the harder by the fact you keep changing husbands. Is it them? Is it you? Well, honey, as the one variable seems to be you."

WHHHAAAATTTTTT???????? I'm just going to translate for people who can't read the above again for fear of being blinded by rage/ bleeding from their ears due to extreme indignation: All of Winslet's husbands were fine, but she's a diva who wants to hop about getting married and pregnant all over the shop.

NEWSFLASH Woods! Organising a wedding is a massive ball ache! No one wants to do it more than once! I think Kate Winslet's probably just in love with these guys!

Anyway, I feel faint with outrage and need to go organise a protest against the Daily Telegraph or something. But in summation, Woods - hates Kate Winslet. Winslet - no idea who Woods is. Thus her column has served only to infuriate all of us women who think Winslet is pretty awesome. Well, at least we know the sisterhood is still working somewhere.

Suggest a correction