Site Loader

Kate Hopkins Response In Kate Hopkins article thought there was a large degree of patronizing and a vulgar attitude towards the children she deemed unsuitable for her children’s friendship. She made me pity her children because of the low amount of freedom she allows them and the way she treats them; she doesn’t care about what they might feel and who they might want to be friends with. Hopkins is a very snobbish woman who has very unrealistic standards.

The first thing that really annoyed me was the fact that she judges re children’s friends without even meeting them first. For example, she makes it clear that ‘pierced ears, passions for pink leggings and an array of electronic equipment’ is something she despises and doesn’t want her children associating with. Hopkins judges her children’s friends on materialistic values and mannerisms before letting a friendship even start to form between them and casting her opinion upon the child in question.

Just because the child likes pink leggings, it doesn’t mean that she can’t be a good influence on her daughter and be a loyal and true friend. Hopkins also judges the names of her children’s friends; her daughter received an invitation to a birthday party but before looking at anything else, she was instantly stunned by the name and said that she couldn’t go. The name of the girl was Charming and personally, think she didn’t like the name of this girl because it sounded common; and how she described the venue of the party backed that up.

This completely appalled me because it’s such a disgusting way to judge someone, also there is some hypocrisy as one of her daughters is called India’ which isn’t exactly the most traditional or attractive names you could name your daughter. It really exasperated me because she should be teaching her daughter how to act civilly and maturely and develop strong friendships instead of ruining them within seconds. Another thing that aggravated me was when she stated ‘l make a mental note when poppy and India tell me that a particular child – let’s call him Peter – is always late for school. This suggests to me that she isn’t doing this to help her children; SSHs owing it out of spite and selfishness. Hopkins doesn’t know what their reason is for being late for school, they could have been stuck in traffic or had home troubles and yet she’s still judging them on something that the young boy probably can’t help. She doesn’t give a second thought about how other children might make her children happy or excited. She simply just cares about her reputation and doesn’t want it to be disturbed by ‘underperforming children’. Hind she does have a genuine care for her children and she intends for them to do well and get good grades, she just portrays it in the wrong manner. Anyone who reads the article will be able to tell that she cares for her children because she alleges a lot about how she wants them to get a good sheet for behavior and good results. It is pleasing that she is concerned about her children’s results, but they are only at primary school and the work they do at primary school is important and necessary to know; but they do not need to be pushed as much as Hopkins is pushing them.

Hopkins also allies that her children need as many friends as they can to give them a happier childhood so putting them in after school clubs is a sensible idea from her because they can meet different people with different interests. Hopefully they will learn not to pick crazy friends, but normal, fun and influential friends. Hopkins is a very controlling mother and in my opinion, too controlling which doesn’t portray her very well as a respectable parent. In conclusion, Hopkins is a snobbish, selfish and an over-protective mother.

Post Author: admin