Just Look At This Asshole: Katie Hopkins Is At It Again, Calls Angelina Jolie “Smug” For Having Her Ovaries Removed

Remember Katie Hopkins, the woman who took great delight in trashing Kelly Clarkson’s body on various talk shows after her cruel fat-shaming tweets went viral? This little ray of sunshine has found another hobby since her shtick about Clarkson dried up. This time she’s shitting all over Angelina Jolie’s attempts to stay alive to watch her children grow up. When news broke that Jolie had her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed after a genetic test showed she’s likely to someday get ovarian cancer, Hopkins saw this as the perfect opportunity to stir shit up, as is her specialty:

I realize at this point she’s just actively trolling to see how much attention she can milk from her attitude. It would do you and me both some good to just ignore her comments altogether, but I’d rather publicly point out how uncool her behavior is, because it seems like every time she mouths off, she’s given a bigger platform to spew vitriol, like say, live television. Saying (or writing) aloud that it’s not okay doesn’t necessarily change anything, but it makes me feel mildly less ragey.

Hopkins reminds me of one of those children that need to be the center of attention 24/7, and thus uses every play date or birthday party as an opportunity to throw a tantrum, develop a sudden fake ailment, or wear a flashier dress than the birthday girl just to show her up. It’s pretty pathetic to see a grown woman still behaving this way, isn’t it? It’s especially disconcerting because this is a person who is responsible for shaping the values of her own young daughters. The world isn’t exactly on a great path these days, and grown-ups like Hopkins teaching our young people that bullying other women for sport is acceptable certainly isn’t helping society’s future. If Hopkins found out she had a high chance of getting cancer and had the option of preventing the disease, would she make the same move as Jolie in order to be around for her kids? Something tells me she just might, and I can’t imagine what about that decision would be “smug.”

This isn’t to say that Jolie or any other celebrity Hopkins targets is a perfect person, just that what they’re being criticized for, such as their appearance and health, has no bearing on their character. We all make choices that occasionally piss off others, and some of those choices may warrant challenging or constructive criticism. Trying to fend off cancer or doing whatever you choose with the size of your body are not among those things. Our own bodies are not open to public debate. Sometimes, this line between acceptable criticism and cruelty is where the idea that women should support each other — which I do wholeheartedly believe — can be misconstrued.

We’ve all occasionally seen the following scenario: A woman receives constructive criticism about something she’s rightfully publicly accountable for, like products she’s trying to sell or ideas she’s imposing on others (rather than personal choices about her body or lifestyle, which are nobody’s business), and that criticism just so happens to come from a person who is also female. The complaint is dismissed as nonsensical and invalid with the simple insistence that “women should support each other,” and the fact that this critic is somehow not supporting her fellow woman must make her a “jealous” anti-feminist or just not worth listening to. Dismissing a valid question or criticism based on the complainer’s gender is extremely sexist, defensive and unhelpful — it’s also unfortunately one more way the patriarchy is screwing us by pitting us against each other.

My whole point here is to clarify that Hopkins’ decision to bash the personal choices of women she doesn’t know is NOT one of these cases. I want to spell that out to be very sure we’re understanding each other, because that fine line between crying “anti-woman” and actually behaving that way, and just how sensitive verbalizing those differences can be for any woman who cares about gender equality, is at the crux of the problem I have with Hopkins. This bitch is completely out of line and has no right to feel that these celebrities owe her an explanation for what they do with their own bodies; at the same time, dismissing female criticism, including Hopkins’, as “unsupportive” simply helps invalidate critiques of her unacceptable behavior. So, to be clear, I’m not coming for Hopkins because she’s not being “supportive” of Kelly Clarkson or Angelina Jolie — I’m criticizing her for being a nasty, judgmental, click-baiting jerk. What she is offering is not “constructive criticism,” yet Hopkins blathers on in interview after interview that her bullying is something her targets need to hear. Why? What’s the takeaway? What is she saying that actually has any substance?

I believe with every fiber of my being that women should support each other in whatever ways we can, and that it’s an important way to fight back against sexism, aside from simply being good karma. Hopkins’ hateful behavior is a direct threat to that, and unfortunately just digs women (including herself) even deeper into the hole of oppression — kind of like when Tina Fey says in “Mean Girls” that calling each other sluts and whores makes it seem okay for guys to call us sluts and whores. Thankfully, most of the internet is just as annoyed with Hopkins’ comments as I am. Elizabeth Licata from The Gloss put it perfectly:

None of us can be sure that we’re not going to get cancer someday, and that terrifies most people. A lot of people identify with Angelina Jolie’s fear, and her choice to have surgery. Attacking that surgery and the decision to share her experience and encourage other women to get screened for cancer genes as ‘smug’ rubbed everyone the wrong way. Finally Hopkins found a person she can’t slam with impunity.

You know what’s actually worth slamming on Twitter? Cancer. Why don’t we spend some time raging about cancer itself instead of finding fault with one person’s attempts to avoid getting it? Hey, for all I know, Hopkins’ entire personality could be an act of experimental performance art, in which case, the joke’s on me. I actually kind of hope that’s true, because I would sleep so much better at night knowing people don’t actually have the audacity to say the things she does without remorse. [The Gloss]