Tom Hiddleston: ‘I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity’


Here are some photos of Tom Hiddleston from a few days ago, exiting Reagan International Airport in Washington. He was carrying his guitar. Sure.

By the way, do you guys think Tom Hiddleston still operates his Twitter, or has it been overtaken by his publicist/management? Have you been to his Twitter recently? It seems strangely antiseptic, especially since he used to post selfies and random thoughts about music and charity work with some regularity. Now it’s all about the work, and there’s no personality. Anyway, just wondering. Our month of Hiddles continues with a new Hello Mag (via the Evening Standard) interview. In this piece, Hiddles tries out his feminist credentials. To mixed results, I think.

Tom Hiddleston says he understands women — thanks to his “strong-minded, independent” mother and sisters. The Night Manager star, 35, has two sisters — Sarah Hiddleston, who is a journalist, and Emma, an actress. His mother Diana is a stage manager.

The actor told Hello! magazine that noticing a woman’s new haircut was a must, as was supporting what she was doing.

“My sisters are very strong-minded, independent women — as is my mother — and I’ve learnt a lot from them. When I was about 16, I had friends who had grown up exclusively around men and they didn’t understand women at all. I like to think that through growing up with my sisters I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things.”

The actor, who has been romantically linked to actresses including Elizabeth Olsen and Jessica Chastain, said he was in no rush to marry. “I’m open to the possibility but you know what they say — you can’t go looking for it, it has to come to you.”

He said he enjoys going to the pub when he is not working abroad. “I’ve been working hard lately,” he said. “As I’ve got older, I’ve become reassured by being surrounded by family and old friends. That feeling is very nice.”

[From The Evening Standard]

“The actor told Hello! magazine that noticing a woman’s new haircut was a must, as was supporting what she was doing.” Did anyone else find that patronizing? Like, Tom Hiddleston understands what women want, they want you to notice their haircut and “support” their activities. I also feel like he just threw in “diversity” for the hell of it, as in Tom Hiddleston has a vague “sense” about women’s diversity. I guess we should give him a gold star for trying and at least being vaguely aware of “diversity” and female needs. As for Hiddles being “open to the possibility” of marriage… hm. I think he’s saying he’s waiting for Elizabeth Olsen to propose. Marriage has to come to him, he won’t go to marriage. Unless he’s secretly been married to Jane Arthy this whole time (lol).

Last thing: Tom did something with WhoSay where he basically gave them a list of his favorite bands/musicians. There are a few side-eyes, especially with R. Kelly’s inclusion.



Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

306 Responses to “Tom Hiddleston: ‘I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

    • Esther says:

      exactly, Tom is more interested in having women think he is some sort of enlightened good guy than actually being a good guy.

      • ell says:

        word. i don’t get cb’s fascination with him, there are FAR more interesting actors around today.

      • tegteg says:

        Agreed. He just needs to hush up now. It was very patronizing and I do think he has demonstrated a lot more talk about being an “enlightened good guy,” than action. By the by, I don’t give two f**ks if somebody notices that my hair is different, or that I’ve changed up my makeup, or whatever… I’d rather them pay attention to my opinions, feelings, the quality of my work. I’m disappointed, Tom. SMH

      • Jessie says:

        His unambiguous love for woody Allen grates. Every other actor gets negative points when they as much as work with Allen not to mention speak favourably on him but Hiddleston is such a golden boy around these parts he’s never taken to task.

      • Boston Green Eyes says:

        @ell, yes!! Like James Norton, for example. I’m so mad about him. He’s becoming more and more popular, but I guess not so popular as to warrant a story about him on Celebitchy. Maybe he doesn’t understand women enough?


      • Abby_J says:


        Not all of us Tom lovers ignore the Woody Allen thing. I cringe when he mentions him, and I’ve never seen Midnight in Paris, nor will I ever. I get that Woody Allen is a big deal still, and he can’t exactly bad mouth the guy. I also get that at the time, he wasn’t so big that he could snub Allen when he came calling with a movie roll, but boy I wish it never happened.

        I also prefer goofy dancing bear Tom to “I’m a serious guy talking about serious stuff” Tom. I’m really hoping my Tom returns for the press tour for Thor Ragnorak next year. Less feminism, more dancing, I say. Even though his dancing makes me cringe too. :)

      • Cranberry says:

        How exactly is he not a good guy? Just because he has an R. Kelly song on his play list, Please.

        @Jesse “His unambiguous love for woody Allen”

        What? Tom talks up a lot of directors, and he only spoke of WA in terms of his work.
        You guys are really reaching.

    • sauvage says:

      Exactly: ew. Just like I would never buy a Chris Brown album. And please don’t get me started on the whole “You have to seperate the work of the artist from the artist, the person!” argument. No, I don’t. If I pay for their work, the person gets the money. I’m NOT financially supporting a person I know to be horrible. I’m not going to financially support a known rapist, or known wife-beater, or …

      Not happening.

      • JWQ says:

        I love this comment, and I agree completely. I might concede that there are horrible people who are great artists whatever their field is, but them being good at their job is not enough for me to give them my money.
        I can’ t watch Roman Polanski’ s movies, no matter how good they are. I watched “The Pianist” before knowing what he did and it was great, if the other movies he has directed are that good then he is amazing. But I cannot pay to watch his stuff, and I’ m pretty sure if I did, I wouldn’ t be able to watch the movie without turning everything in it into some sort of visual legitimation of statutory rape. I just can’ t.

      • T.Fanty says:

        I agree. It all comes down to patronage. I can appreciate something, assuming it isn’t filtered with the *sshole’s ideology (looking at you, Woody Allen, and your May-December romantic couplings), but I will not validate that person’s career by financially supporting them. As a consumer, economic power is the most influential tool we have. I feel that this also applies to the feminism/equal pay argument. If we support more female filmmakers, and they will get more opportunities. The bottom line is everything.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        I agree with everything y’all have said. There is no way in hell I’m going to support someone that has proven himself to be a misogynistic a$$hole. There are enough great artists that I can financially support that to give any money to the R. Kellys, Polanskis and Allens of the world is to me, irresponsible and basically validates their horrible actions.

        Tsk, tsk Hiddles, you should know better with that progressive, feminist attitude you claim to have.

    • chelsea says:

      He is pretty mediocre, I agree.

  1. Crocuta says:

    His mother and sisters all have careers, so I sincerely doubt he meant the kitchen.

    And as much as I would love to deny it, women I know do get insanely offended if you don’t notice their haircut, so he might have based that on an actual experience.
    Not to mention he works in a business where looks are extremely important.

    • t.fanty says:

      I cut four inches off my hair and it took Mr. Fanty a week to notice. I noticed his lack of notice and was not happy.

      • Crocuta says:

        I have a similar experience with mr. Crocuta and though I did the change for myself, his lack of notice still saddened me. I was not proud of myself for that.

        And while quite a few women I know try to point to their changed looks if you don’t notice immediately, one coworker of mine goes into silent treatment if you don’t say anything. It’s safer to ask about a change where there is none than to overlook a change.
        I personally don’t know any men with the same reactions.

        So I do get what Hiddleston is saying.

      • T.Fanty says:

        Being disappointed in a partner not noticing something significant isn’t about gender, it’s about taking care of one another’s feelings (as Sixer pointed out below). Mr. Fanty is currently on a hard core diet, and I presume that I will be expected to comment admirably on his achievements at least once a week. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t make me a “cliche,” just married.

    • ell says:

      luckily we’re not all cliches are we? i don’t care about anyone noticing my hair at all.

      • Crocuta says:

        Luckily, yes. But pretending that all women are rational when it comes to other people not noticing the changes in their appearance is delusional (some react to hair, make-up, clothes, some lucky ones indeed to nothing). It’s more common than it should be. And it gets worse in professions where looks matter.

      • ell says:

        ‘ But pretending that all women are rational’

        lol what? this is why, as a 20 something, i struggle to relate to older women. these sort of opinions are dying down with my generation, and i’m proud of that. women are as rational as men. end of.

      • Miss M says:

        Based on your exchange, I would hardly call you rational.

      • Crocuta says:

        @ell: You left out the other part of my sentence, you know, the context. ;) But I agree with you anyway. Yet both women and men can be irrational, too. I am not fond of gender stereotypes, but I know a lot of men on the verge of worshiping their cars, and very few women who do the same. On the other hand, I know more women concerned with their looks than I do men. And that’s what I referred to. Twist it all you want, you can’t persuade me he isn’t right about it, even if it sounds patronizing. Trust me, I would prefer if this wasn’t the case, but reality is waving at me with examples. (And I’m exactly his age, BTW.)
        P.S. Not ALL women, obviously, and not ALL men. I am just speaking of my own experience with people.

        @Miss M: I never said I was. I specifically stated above that I am not happy with my reaction.

      • ell says:

        @Crocuta i’ve met boys and men who are far more vain than girls, and complained i didn’t notice their haircut or the new outfit. i think it’s a gender stereotype, the fact that some people fit within those stereotype doesn’t mean cliches are a fact. and luckily, might i add.

        @Miss M lmao, i’m familiar with your comments on cb, so tbh being called irrational by you, could almost sound as a compliment.

      • Sixer says:

        Although I am not one of them, I’m sure there are many women who expect their partners to notice if they’ve significantly changed their appearance. Their partners SHOULD notice they look different! I have to be dragged kicking and screaming to all things grooming, but am aware I am not the norm. The Sixlets (both boys) on the other hand, would be devastated if anyone failed to notice their cool, new haircut.

        The point is actually it’s really not a wise go-to example for use when discussing your male feminist credentials. Quite the opposite.

      • Miss M says:

        @crocuta: my comment was to Ell not you. Sorry for the confusion.

      • n says:

        True, but I personally take something like this as an indication of a man’s overall attentiveness to the women in his life. If they can’t even notice and compliment their wife/girlfriend’s haircut, what does that say about their attentiveness in other areas? It’s one of the most immediate and acknowledgeable ways of demonstrating that you respect someone enough to notice things about them, same as when someone takes the time to compliment your new dress or shoes or car.

        Now I’m not saying that Tom means it in this context(I don’t know him to judge that) but in the article he did say that complimenting haircuts was the “first lesson” from his sisters. They told him that, so clearly it’s somehow important to them whether on a vanity level or a “please pay attention to the women in your life” level.

      • Crocuta says:

        @ell: Again, I agree with you. Nothing is 100%. It’s just that I have a different experience. I, unlike you, don’t know any men who’d be more vain than the vainest women I know. However, on the flip side, the greatest drama queens (yes, sexist term) I know are men. To kill another cliche, they’re straight men. So people accusing women being the bigger drama queens always surprises me, but it could be they’re speaking from their experience. The truth is, we can all be irrational about certain things. I know I am. And if Hiddleston’s experience is anything like mine, I can’t blame him for his words.

        @Miss M: Oh, OK. NP.

      • Bettyrose says:

        FK this was so patronizing. But I’ve heard “good guys” make similar statements, it’s just that those are usually the sexually inexperienced types who put women on pedestals. If Hiddles is suffering from 35 year old virgin syndrome, I’d be happy to help with the cure.

      • ell says:

        @n, it doesn’t say anything. some people don’t care much about looks, and can be completely attentive in other areas. they’re really not mutually exclusive things.

        tbh, i’m not even all that bothered by what TH says, it’s the usual tripe he comes up with every now and again, it’s women perpetuating gender stereotypes that i find objectionable. so my comment is less directed at him, and more at the general tone of some comments in this post.

        @ Crocuta ‘The truth is, we can all be irrational about certain things. I know I am.’

        i agree with this, and that’s my point. when i said women are as rational as men, i meant to say we’re all humans who are sometimes rational and sometimes not. i’m not fond of stereotypes, i think they’re harmful.

      • Bay says:

        “pretending that all women are rational”

        Oy, oy, oy, oy… Considering one of the basic human characteristics, that distinguishes them from other animals, is their capacity for reason, it’s safe to say all woman ARE rational. Except for those who might suffer from brain damages, of course. Unless one consideres women, not quite human?…

        See? When stuff like that is said in passing, how the hell am I supposed to go ape over measly things like Tom’s theory on the importance of haircuts?

      • Esther says:

        no not all women are rational as are not all men. we humans like to think we are but come on how many of us really are? i include myself obviously.
        just like common sense is not common.

      • Crocuta says:

        @Bay: What’s with you people cutting sentences apart to rid them of their context? I mean seriously, taking a whole sentence out of a post I kind of understand, but taking only half a sentence? Really? Again, like I told to the other poster quoting me, that is only half of my line, and what it continues into is equally necessary to understand what I meant. It’s in the same sentence, people! Go read it again.

        To explain again (and again and again): all people, of all genders, have their irrationalities (which are a matter of perspective anyways). It’s what makes us human. And in my experience (as discovered above, this is a different one to ell’s) more women are worried about their looks than men. So, it is not universally gender specific. But it is not completely untrue either, otherwise some of us wouldn’t have noticed that,

      • NUTBALLS says:

        A thread such as this is not complete without Eve chiming in. This is catnip for her.

        I don’t find men nearly as irrational as women. On the whole, I relate better to men and their detached way of looking at things. They’re not as sensitive with their own feelings and therefore not prone be sensitive to other’s feelings either.

        There’s a strong correlation between confidence and being comfortable with ones self and being less likely to turn a statement back on themselves negatively and take offense.

      • marshmellow says:

        Can we stop with this idea that being completely rational is the ideal? The most rational people in the world are psychopaths since they lack the capacity for complex emotion. That’s not the ideal we should have…

        And yes, I’ve seen some very vain men, just not about looks. Well, not all of them. I used to co-op in Dark Souls with a guy who would throw a tantrum every time I out-played him or leveled up before him. Eventually, he stopped playing with me because he was so insecure about it.

      • Bay says:

        @Crocuta I in fact took the liberty of cropping part of it, because the full sentence doesn’t sound much better, to be honest:

        “But pretending that all women are rational when it comes to other people not noticing the changes in their appearance is delusional (some react to hair, make-up, clothes, some lucky ones indeed to nothing).”

        So, “women are rational, UNLESS when their looks are concerned: then they go all amoeba brain on you. Sure, a short few of them don’t go crazy about the size of their butts, but if you think women don’t go homicidal if the doorman doesn’t notice she changed her hair colour from sand brown to creme, you’re only kidding yourself.” See? Not much better.

        Yeah, “all people have irrationalities”. But your sentence right there was specific about one particular gender. It’s the type of apparently innocent generic statement that misogynists use to justify their hatred of women: “see? even women admit they’re an over-emotional mess over the stupidest things. we’re right!”. And I don’t see the point to basing my personal philosophy on human relationships, on points that might reinforce bigots (and this goes for Tom too, I’m afraid).

      • Crocuta says:

        @Bay: You understood the sentence wrongly. Perhaps it is my English, I don’t know, but what I meant is “not all women are rational when their looks are concerned” and not, as you put it, “women are rational unless when their looks are concerned”. There’s a huge difference. I don’t even know how you got to that conclusion, but anyway. That’s why I would prefer the whole sentence to be quoted, because then some people might not come to the conclusion you have. Disagree with my actual opinion all you want, but do not insert a new meaning to it. And just to be on the safe side, I hereby declare that I do not believe women are only rational unless their looks is concerned. I believe that women, like men, are mainly rational, but all of us have itchy spots. Better?

        And I only spoke about women and their looks because that’s what the problem with Hiddleston’s quote seems to be. If it was another example, I would have spoken about that one.

      • Bay says:

        Today I learned that, say, group after group of mostly male soccer fans rioting and ruining entire city blocks, basically because a ball failed to enter an overgrown basket, is just a bunch of hooligans behaving badly, while a variable number of women caring about the way their hair looks, is representative of 50% of mankind and a testament of the irrationality of women.

      • bettyrose says:

        I clearly posted my original – light hearted – message in the wrong place, but now that I’ve inserted myself into this discussion, I should comment on the actual issue.

        First of all, there is nothing innately less rational about the female mind. Certainly, there are cultural factors that sometimes result in women holding themselves back intellectually to seem less intimidating, but that’s not a statement about female potential.

        Second, I cringe every time a woman says “I prefer the company of men.” This suggests a belief in a hierarchical system in which men are at the top. If you, as a woman, insist that you are more like a man, you are suggesting that you feel you personally are at a higher place in the hierarchy than other women.

        While I certainly prefer the company of lower drama, more cerebral types, I wouldn’t say that either gender wins in that regard. Having said that, I very much enjoy the “company” of the CB community throughout my workday, and I gather that most of us here are women. That speaks for itself.

      • Lyla Lotus says:

        I get somewhat miffed when people don’t notice I’ve had my hair done, whenever I’ve said to someone ‘have you had your hair done’ they have seemed flattered that someone noticed.. From my 26 years experience, the only exception being this thread, TH has a point!!

      • Crocuta says:

        @Bay, I am starting to worry about your reading comprehensions. Seriously. And I thought my English was the problem.
        I am humouring you *for the last time*.
        Those football fans are irrational and while they do not represent all men, some men (and some, but IMO fewer women) are indeed like that.
        Those women with “hair-issues” are irrational and while they do not represent all women, some women (and some, but IMO fewer men) are indeed like that. Myself included.
        I would call out both, BTW. It just so happens Hiddleston was talking about women and hair, not men and football. When the latter happens, will we be having this discussion again, me claiming people can be irrational about sports and you being angry over that opinion? Sigh.
        I’m out.

      • ennuiarethechampions says:

        See, I don’t accept the premise that being miffed that my partner didn’t notice my new haircut is irrational. Losing my mind about it — yes, but annoyance? Not irrational. Not because my life revolves around my hair (good thing too, since it’s a hot mess today), but because I expect him to look at me, pay attention to me, and notice me. If my appearance changes significantly (not talking about a little trim here) and he doesn’t realize it, that tells me he may not be doing those things. Men should want the same from a relationship, by the way, but there’s much less variation in male haircuts, such that they are less likely to amount to a major change in appearance.

      • Bay says:

        @Crocuta Sorry about that. The hooligans example, wasn’t aiming you; it was for those keen on praising men’s Superior Rationality and purity of those pesky emotions.

      • Cranberry says:

        “he did say that complimenting haircuts was the “first lesson” FROM HIS SISTERS.”

        @n, So well said. Tom was speaking of his experience. Sure maybe it sounded a bit patronizing, and I think he should take more care next time, but I think he was trying to explain aspects of his personality and the way he relates to women in more intimate terms. Tom is quite comfortable with and attentive to women. Actually he is quite attentive more so than average to everybody I’ve always noticed and attributed it to the way he was brought up by his mother. He has said as much many times over the years.

      • jammypants says:

        Oy vey this conversation is messy. Generalizations keep on piling. Someone above mentioned being completely rational as the ideal is psychopathic. And then another person generalized an entire generation of older women. And then generalizations about men. And then women making generalizations about women. What a maelstrom of offensiveness (taken and given).

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        Sorry girls, but this is quite an irrational chit chat… :P

        (just kidding…)

  2. Ivy says:

    Clicking on this post I braced myself for some serious mansplainin but it’s not that bad. Not good though… I agree that the haircut comment comes across as slightly patronizing. I don’t give a f*ck if anyone notices a hair cut because I’m getting those exclusively for me, myself and I.
    But I think he has a point in saying that growing up with sisters probably makes you more sensitive to women’s issues. Though it doesn’t mean that you don’t have to put the work in.

  3. Dangles says:

    As an aside, I’ve only just noticed the click here to cancel reply feature on this site. That’ll come in handy.

  4. Naya says:

    “When I was about 16, I had friends who had grown up exclusively around men and they didn’t understand women at all. I like to think that through growing up with my sisters I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things”

    This is so patronising and self aggrandising. Sheesh.

  5. InvaderTak says:

    Eh that was the ususal, still pretty safe statements. I don’t think he meant to be patronizing just non committal on actual issues. Generally harmless. He was talking to hello and they’re not about depth from what I gather. So considering the audience….

  6. Sixer says:

    Hahahaha. There is enough hilarity in there for you guys to have no need of me today, There will be other naysayers, I feel. I’m going to bugger off and be diverse in my strong-minded, independent, womanly way. And mourn Ronnie Corbett. Four candles to you all.

    (LEGS is a nonsense-talking twit and JArthy WILL return).

  7. lilacflowers says:

    The way interviewers and editors handle an article factors heavily into what appears on the page.

    I expect everyone to notice when I change my hair and they had all better be complimentary or there will be shanking.

    Yes, he is secretly married. To me.

    Now, we’re going to spend the morning learning how to play the spoons to Sunday, Bloody Sunday. Kitchen counters, beware!

    • I Choose Me says:

      Speaking of noticing things. How come no one’s mentioned the glorious bulge on display in the first pic? Or is it just my dirty mind playing tricks and that’s just a fold in his pants?

      • MoochieMom says:

        It could be the pants. My husband has been working in London and N. Ireland and had to buy some clothes. When he got home I promptly declared he was not to ever wear the pants he bought unless he was out with me. Not bragging but the display in front and behind was ridiculous.

  8. Becky says:

    His Twitter posts changed a while ago, in 2013 IIRC and have been pretty impersonal and work-related for a while. Imo I think he still posts (esp when he deletes and posts again because of a minor mistake)

  9. I think he is basically a good guy and he may well be sensitive to women and their needs, but I grew up surrounded by men and don’t claim to understand the essence of all men. In fact, I have been quite surprised how different the men outside the 5 that I grew up with are. o_0 But I suppose There’s a thank you in order for his efforts. Still, it’s all a bit condescending really.

    • icerose says:

      i grew up surrounded by men and it was a useful lesson in what not to look for in a man.When ever you start talking in generalities it can lead to criticisms and challenges.But good on him for speaking up about how wonderful his sisters and mother were in helping his understanding of women in a positive way.

    • I Choose Me says:

      But he doesn’t claim to understand the essence of all women. Just that he’d like to think he has a sense of . . .

      • True, but the overall tone dictates that he has a deeper understanding than others, and that’s what I was referring to.

      • Cranberry says:


        I think he was still trying to explain why he feels he has a deeper understanding than other men based on his experiences. Tom was brought up very formally, and the men he was exposed to maybe didn’t have the sensitivity and attentiveness that Tom has as so many people have noticed.

        He has said that his mother instilled in him a deep reverence for kindness, and Tom is very kind so for him this is his experience and influence of women. Does he put too much reverence on women putting them up on a pedestal? Yes, maybe so. But much of this is due to his sense of propriety and graciousness that was instilled in him growing up.

      • lilacflowers says:

        Well, he has a deeper understanding than Ted Cruz or Donald Trump.

      • icerose says:

        yes-I agree-there was a wee bit of generisation but nothing significant,He did go to an all boys school which can but not necessarily have an impact on how comfortable you feel with women and I suspect his comments were also linked to that

    • Andrea says:

      I am an only child and my mother although a stay at home mother, was neglectful and never really around. Thus, I feel more comfortable around men to this day (because of my father). My two best friends are men and I also have an assortment of other male friends. I have a few female friends too, but I feel like I hold my male friends higher. I do feel I understand men over some women because of this because I get to know all their inner feelings etc (my male friends tell me their dating problems with women, when they have one night stands, when they aren’t feeling it with a woman and why etc). However, I do not claim I know everything there is about men. But I still feel I understand men than I do most women (one of my girlfriends just yesterday was texting me about being upset her bf hadn’t texted her in 8 hours but called her that night and it was because his phone was dead and he was in college all day long; I don’t get the clinginess aspect of some women).

      • icerose says:

        I had a brilliant relationship with my dad but not my brothers which made realise that all men are different.My Dad was a great complimenter of hair etc and I always loved that he noticed .I also gravitate towards women for closer friendship ships so it seems to me there id no specific rule rule re your hair.
        I have also been a feminist since I was in my twenties and have never felt that having my hair complimented by men or women diminished my feminist beliefs in any way.

    • Jellybean says:

      I have always understood men a lot more than women. I am a woman with two sisters and no brothers, but we all grew up to be tom boy types who always had more male friends and work colleagues than female. They do indeed come in many different varieties and it hurts sometimes when I read aggressively anti male comments on sites like this, because I know that some of the most decent, kind and supportive men I know would be ripped to bits because, superficially, they do not fit the modern feminist ideal. As ‘one of the boys’ PC friendly platitudes mean very little to me.

  10. Grump says:

    That comment on marriage is the exact thing all my slutty male friends say. Fan girls, I don’t think he’s coming for you. Or anyone.

    Although, some of my friends have said they’d marry to have kids, but it definitely seems it’s the desire to reproduce in a socially conventional manner, rather than have a partner, that is the motivating factor.

    I guess I need to find a new celebrity crush then…


  11. Esther says:

    ah the good old male feminists.

    luckily women are more occupied with fishing for compliments for their hair cuts than calling out men who love R.Kelly.

  12. spidey says:

    Actually a lot of this interview sounds like a rehash.

    • Meee4 says:

      Yes. It just seems reworded from how many other articles. I mean the marriage quote was equal to the “something to write home about..” As with the feminist, strong women etc.
      Come on by now anyone who is a fan or pays attention to him knows that he’s not giving us anything that he does or doesn’t want us to know. Picking apart his every article, sound byte, video clip etc. is useless when he’s really just saying the same thing.
      Now don’t hate me for this but I still have some old R. Kelly on my iPod, cause well I just like the songs, sorry.

  13. Kate says:

    I dated a guy who was raised by his mother and had two sisters, so his big calling card in relationships was that his upbringing “made him who he was” and allowed him to be “feminine” and “understand women”.

    He was a misogynistic piece of shit and treated me with tirade after tirade of verbal abuse. When the emotional abuse got bad enough, I left.

    Being surrounded by women doesn’t mean you understand them.

  14. spidey says:

    Specially for Sixer:

  15. ell says:

    lmao, can you imagine if an actress commented on knowing who men are and their needs? everyone would be laughing at such weird statement. and i’m all for men being feminists as i am also a feminist, but TH is so patronising, it’s unreal. he seems to think what he says about women sounds enlightened, but it just comes across as clunky and odd.

  16. Bay says:

    “all those lovely things”

    Yeah. Like menstruation and cramps, imma right?

    Didn’t much like that. Too annoyingly close to the “women are from venus” bs that really grinds my gears. Buut I’m not going to bring out the pitchforks over an opinion that was pretty meh all around. Specially considering the abject commentaries that go around concerning women’s rights, these days.

  17. n says:

    I’m beginning to think I’m blocked or blacklisted from here lol, but for context, he was asked “What did your sisters teach you about women?” so there is a bit missing here. Obviously some will still find his words inappropriate or patronising, but personally seeing the leading (awkward) question I don’t think this was a case of a man proclaiming to be enlightened and bestowing knowledge upon us. The haircut comment was also a joke about his sisters’ lessons for him. I doubt he really thinks you can please a woman by letting her on the head and saying her hair looks nice. But it is nice to know that the men in your life pay attention to even minor things like that. Makes it more likely that they pay attention to other things too.

    • lilacflowers says:

      Now, don’t you know, the question, context, and editing must always be overlooked?

      • n says:

        lol true. And I’m not saying that with context everyone’s going to magically say “oh I’m sorry for disagreeing with him he’s perfect”. I just personally feel that the idea that he’s trying to descend from heaven above, pat us on the head, and mansplain to us is slightly ignoring the context of him actually being asked a question. That’s no one’s fault if they’ve not seen the original article, and maybe they’ll still feel the same, but idk it felt like this post was just putting together a list of things to dig in about – feminism, Lizzie Olsen, one R Kelly song that everyone I know enjoys (actually I didn’t realise R Kelly had done anything wrong until a few months ago).

        Like I said below I’m not the type to criticise everything, I’m very… accommodating and I believe the best of people for the most part simply because I realise that many people are well intentioned even if how they say things or what they understand is a bit off base.

      • Lilacflowers says:

        Context to me is essential. I’m also constantly leery about how interviewers and editors present things – the subject has no control unless it is airing live – having been misquoted by some publications and having the WSJ attribute something I said in an interview to someone else. Editors have a great deal of power. But I find others don’t share my concerns about context or facts.

      • I Choose Me says:

        Ha. Shhh, you’re spoiling all the fun.

        This is why I prefer live interviews to ones that I read. Tone, context and body language is key.

      • KTE says:

        I read the original article this morning, and having skipped this re-hash and come straight to the comments, can’t understand what people are upset about! It sounded completely inoffensive to me. The haircut comment was obviously a joke (and also a truism – you can’t go wrong complimenting someone on a new haircut and you certainly upset people if you fail to notice it entirely).

        Other than that all he said is that his mum and sisters are awesome, independent women, and that when he was growing up he felt better equipped to understand and relate to women than his peers (in an all-boys school) because of them.

    • Meee4 says:

      I agree about context. I mean days ago he was so intelligent and respectful and now he’s suddenly patroninizing and condescending? hmmm.

    • spidey says:

      @ n ” I’m beginning to think I’m blocked or blacklisted from here lol,” You wouldn’t be the first! :cool:

  18. TotallyBiased says:

    When throwing excerpts out there like chum in the water for the CB feeding frenzy, I really wish we’d get it straight from the original interview (in this case, Hello magazine) instead of third hand.
    Just my two cents. Somehow the haircut comment didn’t particularly bother me in the context of the original article, but I agree it comes across as patronising in the ES version.

    • n says:

      Totallybiased, I agree. When I read the Standard article I was like “really?!” but I figured I’d wait to see a scan of the original. Lo and behold, he was asked a leading question and made a small joke. He didn’t just up and start proclaiming he Knows Things About Women. All the stuff about him liking to think he understands the diversity and needs of women? That didn’t bother me in the context of the question either. Sure, it sounds a bit awkward, but I imagine people are interpreting it differently from how I did. I don’t feel that him saying “I like to think…” is boastful or a pat on the back. It’s just a turn of phrase – I use it a lot as a hedging tactic actually but I can’t speak to how he uses it. I think whatever he said there’d be backlash or disagreement, that’s just how the subject of feminism and women’s rights is. People disagree a lot.

      Then again, maybe we are totally biased (sorry) lol. I’m under no illusion that he’s perfect but I’m not really the type of person to criticise everything. I’d say the same for a lot of famous people tbh. There’s been a good few times when I’ve seen someone getting backlash for a comment which I think is out of proportion to what they actually said.

      • ell says:

        lbr, we tend to criticise who we don’t like and side with the celebs we like. there’s no point in pretending we aren’t biased.

        i don’t like TH, he bugs me. i’m notta gonna deny the fact that i don’t like him very much, doesn’t somehow sway how harshly i judge what he says. on the other side, i like alicia vikander so i tend to give her a pass if she says something that sounds off. we all do this, we all have our favs and those we don’t like at all.

      • spidey says:

        Having found the original article courtesy of my library’s e-magazine collection I can say that I honestly think the question was asked, and answered jokingly. As in “woe betide me if I didn’t notice my sisters had got a new hairstyle”.

        Having said that I will happily acknowledge he can be very cheesy and very verbose at times. But. hey, it gives folks something to moan about.

      • jammypants says:

        Ell, I like your honesty. It’s refreshing to see when there are those who won’t admit that.

      • Dara says:

        *applause for ell*

        I find it very irksome when some celebrity I absolutely loathe says something I completely agree with, or even worse, says something so profound that I actually have to re-evaluate my own views, and my opinion of said celebrity in the process. How dare they make me question my own righteous indignation?

      • Anne tommy says:

        Not so much applause for ell for her apparent ageism in the above discussion about being rational. Ell as a twenty something finds it hard to relate to “older women” (undefined) because they have outmoded views about issues like women being more irrational than men? And yet she doesn’t like stereotypes? Sounds contradictory to me. “Older women” have as diverse views as younger women ell, as you will discover in the fullness of time.

      • ell says:

        @anne tommy, no i can’t relate to older women writing stuff like nutball did, such as :
        ‘I don’t find men nearly as irrational as women. On the whole, I relate better to men and their detached way of looking at things.’

        that’s just bullcrap and stereotypes, and something my nan would say because she doesn’t know any better. i’m aware there are plenty of older women who don’t still believe in that tripe, i’ve definitely met some (like my mum) and respect them immensely. on the whole though, my generation is beyond these stereotypes, and before you go all sour on me, you should be glad we’re evolving as women, and giving ourselves the freedom to be emotional or rational or irrational or whatever regardless of our gender. that’s feminism.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        ell, I’m speaking from my experience which is evidently different from yours. You’re sort of proving my point that if someone expresses a different perspective you’re reacting as though they are invalidating yours. I’m not.

        It’s true that I have never had to walk on eggshells with men like I have with some women, afraid to say something that “makes them feel bad about themselves”. I’ve never had a man stop talking to me because he read an unintended in meaning into something I’ve said. I’ve never in four decades of life had a man tell me he was offended by something I’ve said. I’ve had this happen many times with women and seen them do it to others. It happens here on CB with regularity and it’s exhausting.

        That “detachment” I’m speaking of is the ability to hear what another person says and not turn it on oneself or assume a dissenting opinion is an automatic criticism. I do find men more detached than women in this regard. Perhaps my social and professional circles are quite different than yours and hence why my perspective differs as well.

      • Anne tommy says:

        I’m already a (little) bit sour on you ell. I think your post kind of underlined my point. I sympathise with your nan BTW.

      • spidey says:

        @ ell “on the whole though, my generation is beyond these stereotypes, ” As a (much) older woman, I disagree, while respecting your right to have an opinion of coursse.

      • fruitloops says:

        Nutballs, men DO care about what people say to them and about them, they just don’t show that their feelings are hurt as openly as women do. And I know men who stopped talking to people because they said something wrong, so it’s (in my opinion and experience) more about people than gender.

      • NUTBALLS says:

        fruitloops, I didn’t say they don’t care. I’m talking about reading more into a statement than what is there and taking offense. That is something I see in women, not men, on the whole. Not all women are quick to take offense — some of us are quite logical when it comes to interpreting people’s words — and I’m sure there are men who are more sensitive to what people say, but I’d suggest they are the exception.

  19. Jessie says:

    he’s very try hard. I am sure his intentions are good but this sounds patronising.

  20. Fanny says:

    “I support women because I have a mother/sister/wife/daughter” is what all of those idiot politicians say when somebody brings up their reputation for being horribly sexist. I like Tom but that’s a dumb, cliche answer. And the haircut thing is worse.

    And yeah, if he wants to do some guilty pleasure listening to the R Kelly song on his ipod that’s fine, but promoting it as some of his favorite music is a no.

  21. Choo says:

    To quote Finchy from ‘The Office’..

    “How could I hate women? ….My mum’s one”

  22. Micki says:

    His cheese is getting truly grating…I’ve never been a fan but with time (an his interviews) I’m not as aloof as I’d like to be.

  23. Dani says:

    I don’t know. I like to think I’m a strong independent woman who don’t need no man but I get upset when my husband doesn’t notice if I cut or color my hair. That said, he usually DOES notice, even when I change my polish color but I think it’s just because he’s observant in nature. I don’t think Tom meant it as tell a woman she’s pretty and you understand her, but maybe his sisters told him that it’s important to notice a change in a woman.

    • Fanny says:

      I understand he was responding to a specific question, but the reason why the answer grates is because he has said the same thing a few times before in response to other questions. It was a little patronizing then too, but I let it go. I’m not going to let it go if he’s going to be making it one of his standard answers.

      • InvaderTak says:

        But he also seems to be painfully aware that he’s going to be judged and pretty thoroughly for whatever he says. (See this recap and thread) so he plays it safe most of the time. Asking men about feminism is stupid anyway imo.

      • marshmellow says:


        Is he, though? Hemsworth said words about women just recently, and all the comments were positive. Joseph Gordon Levitt and Neil Gaiman get asked questions about feminism all the time, and their responses are very thoughtful and well-put. Further, I’ve never heard anyone say Levitt or Gaiman were being patronizing.

      • InvaderTak says:

        But none of them have the fan base that he does either. And we must not be reading the same sites because I saw criticism of all of those comments. And yes, given his past comments, it’s safe to say he is very aware of how he’s perceived. Honestly, he whole interview is kinda eyeroll worthy, but nothing serious but he gets attacked for every little thing and I think really unfairly. I’m not trying to be a nanny or anything like that but I don’t why people are so harsh about every. Little. Thing. About him.

      • marshmellow says:

        That’s true. Hiddleston’s fanbase is a little crazy. And Gaiman typically gets quoted by feminist sites for his quotes on feminism, so that’s likely to affect the discussion about his comments.

        Nonetheless, I don’t think men should be deterred from talking about gender equality.

      • InvaderTak says:

        In the real world, yes I agree. The discussion is for everyone. But in gossip world, it seems like a celeb men are darned if they do and darned if they don’t. It’s either mansplaining or not good enough. And then for TH it’s super magnified. That’s why I don’t really care about his quotes here. They were fine in their context. He was asked a dumb question and he responded in kind. He said nothing of any particular substance as is his mo when asked fluff questions. He tried to make it deeper and got awkward is what I got from it. It a happened before.

        (As a side I’m really grateful for this thread today because my real life is crap today and I need to focus on something irrelevant for a while)

      • marshmellow says:

        In the real world, anyone who talks about feminism, men and women, tend to get a lot of criticism. And by “criticism,” I mean death threats… One of my friends gave a short presentation in class about sexual assault statistics – not even a controversial comment, just plain statistics – and someone in class wrote an anonymous letter to her that he was going to rape her. So yeah, “damned if you do” is true for everyone, not just celebs.

        That being said, I think it’s important that male (and female) celebs discuss feminism somewhat. It can be silly; it doesn’t have to be super enlightening or dissertation-worthy or anything. But it normalizes the conversation and makes it easier for the lesser-knowns of us to discuss it.

      • Cranberry says:

        “He was asked a dumb question and he responded in kind. He said nothing of any particular substance as is his mo when asked fluff questions. He tried to make it deeper and got awkward is what I got from it.”

        @InvaderT, Thank you.

        When asked specifically about gender inequality Tom has been very clear and articulate of his views. But in general he does keep things pretty surface-y. And I don’t blame him.

  24. marshmellow says:

    My initial reaction to the title was “p*ss off, Hiddles.” After reading the bit in context, my reaction remains the same.

    So basically he’s like, “I understand women as a group … oh, and diversity or something … from spending time with three people who are from the same family and culture as me and who are not particularly diverse at all.” Like, seriously? I thought this was the person who put tremendous amounts of thought and care into his statements?

    And as someone mentioned upward in the comments, his fawning over Woody Allen and David O. Russell is off-putting.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      When exactly has he fawned over either of those persons? Anytime in the last four years?

    • InvaderTak says:

      I think you’re putting to seprate statements together and coming out with something twisted. He was specific and then he wasn’t.

      • marshmellow says:

        His original comment was one sentence. He says, “I like to think that through growing up with my sisters I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things.”

        How the hell does growing up with two women give one a sense of who all women are?

        If that’s what he actually meant, then he needs to reconsider what “diversity” means. If it wasn’t, then that response was very poorly worded, thus I asked why Hiddleston was thought to be very careful about his responses.

        If he was trying to be careful, he did a poor job of it.

      • InvaderTak says:

        Youre using the word diversity as it applies to social issues and society in a large sense. That usage is new and a secondary definition. The simple one is: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc. His usage is fine, if not the norm. I took it to mean he is aware that women are multi dimensional, not just objects. Which is a good thing I think.

      • marshmellow says:

        Granted, if women are multidimensional, it’s difficult to assert that one understands the needs of women as a group. Someone mentioned above, but it reminds me of the whole “Women are from Venus” mentality.

        Again, I just think his response wasn’t well thought out. It’s another generic Hiddleston non-answer.

      • InvaderTak says:

        I think he was using women as the plural of woman, not the collective women as in 50% of humanity. He wasn’t asserting that he understands all, just using the plural.

    • Cranberry says:

      He was saying that he thinks he has a better understanding of women because of his experience with his male friends. He attributes his deeper understanding (compared to other men he’s known) to the intimate influence of his mother and sisters. He was not speaking in political terms. He was speaking more about his personal experience.

      Regarding Woody Allen, as I said up thread and let’s be clear right here. He was speaking professionally! If you don’t like Tom fine but don’t misrepresent him.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      Thank you, jammypants. Not that most of the commenters here will bother to read for açcuracy or context, because it is more fun to pile on the Hiddleston!

      • jammypants says:

        I’m sure not everyone will bother to read this either. Opinion is already marked! ;)

      • Bay says:

        When people here started saying there was context missing, I’ve began to question if I read the right article. Only, with that scan, I realize I DID.

        “I like to think that through growing up with my sisters I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things.”

        How does that read as anything else but “I’ve known these individuals that belong to this group, so now I know what this entire group is about” (keeping in mind, this “group”, is roughly 50% of Humanity – quite the representative group of three individuals, there, Tom!). This sounds like those types of people that go “Oh, I have black friends that are ok with me using the n-word as a white person, so therefore I know how everything single black person feels about said word!”.

        And what “lovely things”? I’m supposedly one of these womanly-beings, and I still don’t know wtf that means.

        I’m going to be benevolent and say all that answer sounds dumb as nails, keeping in mind the question was not on the smart side either.

      • jammypants says:

        @Bay, I read it so differently to you, haha! I genuinely read his response as: “These people are real to me when all the men around me don’t see them as people and more of a mystery. My personal experience has made me see how much these men see women as a different species when we are all the same but with celebrated differences.”

        I don’t read much into “lovely things” bit because I see him praising the women in his life as quite inspirational to him. I’ve read so many of his interviews that I don’t see stupid, ignorant, or bad intentions. He’s made it quite clear how unfair it is that in the 21st century, women still aren’t even paid fairly, for example. He’s completely against and horrified by female genital mutilation. He loves playing opposite of a strong female lead character who doesn’t exactly need a male savior. I think his heart is in the right place, and we as women are very sensitive to how men “mansplain” us, but I have a friend who is literally just like him: divorced parents, closer to the mother, two sisters – one older and one younger, one with kids and one single. He also has the same mindset as Tom. It blows his mind that women aren’t respected. But he also appreciates doing things he thinks makes them happy, like, being supportive and complimenting their styles.

      • InvaderTak says:

        @Bay:He was using the simple definition of the word diversity: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc. I got that he was saying that women are diverse as individuals, that they’re multi dimensional, not that he is aware of the diversity of women as a whole. See my comments above.

      • Solanacaea (Nighty) says:

        I’m reading the original. I think people tend to be extremely harsh on everyone else (celebs or not). People are different, with different backgrounds and views on life. This always leads to confusion, because people have a tendency to jump the barrel too soon (it’s like this, the expression?) and also have this idea that every single human being has to think alike..

      • Bay says:

        @jammypants @InvaderTak Only, Tom didn’t say “Through growing up with my sisters, I learned that women are individuals just like men are”, but came up with a wording that sounds quite othering in itself: “I know who women are, THEIR needs, THEIR diversity”, and that “lovely things” remark that I’m having quite the difficulty in reading as anything else but a remark that reduces women to their looks and appearances, coupled with the “haircuts” initial statement.

        That Tom has said positive and reasonable things before, doesn’t erase the stupidity in this.

      • InvaderTak says:

        I don’t think that’s what he meant at all. I think in a meandering way he was saying that through growing up with sisters he understands that women are multi dimensional and have elaborate personalities as opposed to the men who don’t grow up with women (that he alludes to in another statement) and think we’re all the same and look at us as one dimensional objects. The “their ” part was probably trying to indicate that he understands that as a man he can’t know all about women but understands somewhat about them/us through observation. I think you’re over reaching but to each their own. I don’t get how you got anything about appearances out of anything he said, other than the hair cut commment which in context was supposed to be amusing not a major insult. I find it hard to believe he suddenly went dumb after all the nice things hes said. His wording is kinda flowery but I hunk you’re taking meaning from his grandiose phrases that just isn’t there.

    • ennuiarethechampions says:

      I don’t know why this comment didn’t survive its earlier posting, but trying again:

      I agree that reading the original questions and answers makes a difference here. From reading the publication’s interpretation, filtered again through CB’s interpretation, one would think that he strolled in, announced without solicitation, “I know everything there is to know about women, because sisters, and their most important concern is whether their man notices their haircut!!!”, then dropped the mic and drove away in a car with a “1FEMNST1″ license plate.

      In reality, he responded to a silly question about what he learned from his sisters with a silly answer about noticing haircuts. Like others, I also understood him to say that growing up with sisters differentiated him from those 16-year-old boys who saw women as unknowable creatures who are impossible to understand.

      I do think he has a tendency to overuse buzzwords like “strength,” “independence,” and “diversity” when discussing women, which can come across as pandering, but which I attribute more to his tendency to find a phrase he likes and repeat it into the ground (see also “There comes a time in a man’s life when he is called upon to yodel”). “Lovely things” was an awkward choice of words, but in context, he wasn’t calling women “lovely things.” It kind of read to me that he was using that phrase to awkwardly wrap up a word-salad sentence that was going nowhere — kind of like when people trail off with “…and all that good stuff.” Only our Cambridge boy would never use such an inelegant phrase, so “lovely things” it was.

      • Bay says:

        “he strolled in, announced without solicitation, “I know everything there is to know about women, because sisters, and their most important concern is whether their man notices their haircut!!!”, then dropped the mic and drove away in a car with a “1FEMNST1″ license plate.”

        I LOL’d. I’m still not crazy about that remark, even in context.

        And when I was pointing out the ““lovely things” wording, I wasn’t suggesting Tom said women are things per si; but there’s a notion there, that aspects pertaining to women have to be necessarily “lovely”, as if women=beauty, which, in reality, they really aren’t.

      • jammypants says:

        “I wasn’t suggesting Tom said women are things per si; but there’s a notion there, that aspects pertaining to women have to be necessarily “lovely”, as if women=beauty, which, in reality, they really aren’t.”

        But he didn’t.

        “growing up with my sisters I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things”

        No mention of looks in any of it. All to do with actual qualities that he admired in women, intangible ones at that. How did people mine that out of this tiny ass off the cuff quote? 😐

  25. chelsea says:

    That playlist is all over the place, a little of something for everyone. Which makes the inclusion of R Kelly even weirder.

  26. spidey says:

    Would they ask an actress the same question in reverse?

  27. Leah C says:

    Where are those ball gags? I love him but those statements annoy me no end.

  28. Abby_J says:

    Oh please, please, please let him have been secretly married to Jane Arthy this whole time. PRETTY PLEASE?!?! Elizabeth Olsen could just be a beard for him. That would be amazing!

    Like I said above, I miss dancing bear Hiddles, even though I cringe every time he actually dances. Serious and thoughtful Hiddles bores me, unless he is discussing Shakespeare, then he can be as serious as he wants to be, especially if he is discussing it with ducks.

    I wasn’t offended about the ‘noticing a woman’s hair’ comment. I know a lot of people who have gotten extreme hair cuts and been shocked when their partners haven’t noticed. My husband isn’t one for noticing that stuff unless it is a really extreme change.

    He does notice if I get a new Doctor Who, Star Wars or comic related article of clothing or accessory though. I guess he has his priorities. :)

  29. jammypants says:

    I have female friends who’d be really upset if people don’t notice their new hairstyles. He’s not far off the mark. Personally, don’t give a rat’s behind if people notice my hair.

    I feel the questions he gets asked is too easy. How has no one asked his thoughts on the controversy of “artists” like Woody Allen, Polanksi, and R Kelly? In fact, we don’t even know if he’s even aware or cares about their reputations. I don’t think he’s ever really shared thoughts on them as “people”. He’s only ever shared his thoughts on their work.

    It’s time Tom gets asked harder questions. Also, if people read the interview in full context (I posted up further), it’s way less patronizing. Sound bites always, well, “bite” more.

    • spidey says:

      Being the devil’s advocate here. Do we have a right to expect him to be asked harder questions? He’s and actor not a politician.

      • jammypants says:

        True, but we know that won’t happen with today’s press. He’ll keep getting pressed for answers in an industry that’s increasingly pushing for more behind the craft, so that means, he needs to prepare answers. I do find it strange actors/actresses get asked more about things outside their work, and in other lines of work, that doesn’t happen. But, because it does happen in his, not being aware is, well, not an excuse to many. Celebs get scrutinized with sharp lenses more because they are more public facing.

        All that said, when I read the Hello interview, I did not find what he said problematic? Like, at all. I think because I read it in his usual polite, very casual, non-offensive tone that veers on teasing and joking, but for people who only get their doses of Hiddles here, I can see why he might come off patronising. To each his/her own.

      • JWQ says:

        He’ s a person before being an actor, and asking opinions on social issues doesn’ t require you to be a senator or a Prime Minister. His opinion is not more important than yours or mine just because he’ s famous, but if I am asked about what I think about R. Kelly, I don’ t see the problem in saying that I think he’ s a piece of s**t, and it shouldn’ t be a problem for actors either.
        Asking people about what they think about this or that is how you get to know them, and how you make selection regarding who to hang around with or not.

        “What do you think about the fact that respectable director Roman Polanski has drugged and raped a 14 years old girl? Would you leave your daughter with him if you had one?” (I hope someone asks this to Kate Winslet and Johnny Depp).
        “What do you think about the fact that Woody Allen, a guy you gush about pretty constantly, has been accused of the sexual abuse of his own child and has married what can be considered his adoptive daughter?”.
        If his position is that he separates the artist from the abuser, as it seems, he can say so. He will lose some fans, he might gain new ones.

        Personally, sometimes I feel like all these jerks’ s supporters have never heard or said out loud what their heroes have done. They’ ve read about it, sure, but the horrible things they have done are all foggy in the distance. I do believe that some of them are just so much in their own bubble that they NEED to be told in person and be forced to think about what they are supporting and take a position. So I’ m all for asking actors these things.

      • Allegra says:


        Sorry, I just can´t find the article right but Tom sai that people that don´t treat women right or don´t give them opportunities or the same amount of money that they give to a male cowork is misogynistic.
        It´s hard now to keep up with Tom´sdaily news, articles and interviews.

    • Allegra says:

      Tom did a weather segment on the Fox 32 Chicago. Here is the Jake Hamilton Facebook page:

    • NUTBALLS says:

      Jammy, we all know how Tom would deal with a hard question like “Why do you like R. Kelly when he’s such a misogynist?” He’d give his typical circumlocutory response that doesn’t come close to answering the question. I’m not saying he should be asked these questions, but if so, there’s enough of a historical precedent to know how he’ll deal with it.

      I remember watching the Q Radio interview during the OLLA promo where he was asked some wonderful in-depth questions and being so disappointed in his shallow answers. Either he can’t or won’t go deep when given the opportunity in an interview, it seems to me.

      ETA: I hope you saw the NOSE P0RN that I posted on the Colbert thread. I was in profile heaven.

      • jammypants says:

        “I’m not saying he should be asked these questions, but if so, there’s enough of a historical precedent to know how he’ll deal with it.”

        I completely agree. But you’re right. He dodges around these questions. He even said before he does this intentionally because he keeps his thoughts to himself and feels his thoughts are not worth sharing. The thing is, people will keep asking until he gives a solid answer. Like his anti-Trump stance gives people enough of an idea that he leans on the liberal side, especially when he posted his Bernie picture. It sort of closes the argument.

        I need to re-listen to that wonderful OLLA interview. I remember really enjoying it.

        nose porn thread, here I come!

      • jammypants says:

        What a glorious nose. Need more of that whole interview if possible.

    • chelsea says:

      His opinions of their work are the only thing he is qualified to speak on.

  30. I Choose Me says:

    There’s no perfect man or perfect celebrity, except maybe Hugh Jackman. Hiddles is not going to always say the right thing nor should he have to. He’s a flawed human being and I get the feeling that we only get occasional glimpses of who he is and what he’s really like. The rest is just persona.

    I don’t think he was being patronising or being anti-feminist by saying he makes a point to notice a lady’s haircut and be supportive. Sure some women don’t give a toss but plenty do. Now his quote on marriage, that made me roll my eyes. Yeah, no, it’s not going to come to you. You either want to or you don’t. Whether you think you’re with the ‘right’ person or not. It all depends on where you are in your life.

  31. jammypants says:

    He’s still a dude, so he’ll never fully get what it’s like to be a woman. That said, he’s not perfect for sure, but I love his work track record:

    Out of his short career, he’s had 9 projects lead by women, he’s played love interest to several older ladies, he’s played support to female-lead movies, and very openly proclaims his feminism.

    To me that’s uncommon compared to the likes of Leo’s ilk

    Word salad aside, I think his choices are more telling than his words.

  32. Felice. says:

    He just posted a thank you on twitter that sounded like him.

  33. anon33 says:

    No comment about his feminism or lack thereof.

    There is NO SUCH THING as paparazzi at Reagan National airport. I live in MD/DC, have used that airport multiple times. Trust me, there are absolutely no photogs of any kind hanging out there waiting for a random celeb sighting. MAYBE (HUUUUGE MAYBE) if someone of higher stature (such as the Brange or JLo or someone like that) was known to have to land there. But this guy? Who is not well known (generally) in the US? And ESPECIALLY not in VA, of all places. But, look at that bright, sunny smile.

    For all you people that think celebs don’t call the paps, here’s your proof.

    • NUTBALLS says:

      I just figured a fan spotted him and used their phone, but those ones outside the airport suggest someone more professional, now that you mention it.

    • jammypants says:

      that’s still not proof lol

    • Sneffnie says:

      Haha, I didn’t even think of that. I’m from LA, so I just assumed all major airports came with paparazzi.

      Not that this indicts Tommy boy himself, but clearly his people arranged it and he was ok with it. And clearly, he IS married…to that guitar.

    • Lilacflowers says:

      Normal people have camera phones and take pictures of celebrities they see in airports and some of those people post those pictures on Instagram

      • NUTBALLS says:

        True, but they don’t look as good as these do. I think both anon posters are correct — someone on his PR team called the DC paps and Tom was ready with a smile for them when he arrived.

      • Allegra says:


        It doesn´t make sense!
        In a short period of 10 days, Tom did Kimmel, Colbert, Charlie Rose, Today , Fox, several interviews to so many magazines.
        Why on earth he needs his pics to be taken ffrom a hired paparazzi?
        He is not Brad Pitt, but either a “nobody” from some Reality Show.

      • jammypants says:

        Tom looked tired as balls in those pictures. Not exactly flattering haha

        @Allegra, good point, which counterpoints Anon33′s point. He’s just not that important in the big scheme of things. So why would he need to call up the paps? Haha I’m bored and turning the argument around :P

      • NUTBALLS says:

        Allegra, there are paps who have said that it’s not the A-listers who call, but those who are not and so it would make sense that a B or C lister would call them for added publicity.

        Doesn’t make him a bad person, just a normal celebrity. I’m not complaining actually. Those were some lovely snapshots for us to enjoy.

      • Allegra says:


        What i’m trying to say , is why he needs to hire a paparazzi to take a couple pics? Really, what diference few pics will make ?
        He already went to 2 major talk shows last week and in this week too. He also did several interviews and had so much coverage from tv , magazine, internet and newspapers.
        ISTL is a indie movie that most likely will not recover the money that Sony invested in it. It is sad, but true.
        In my opinion, if his PR uses this tactic to attract the attention from the media and his fans, he needs to fire them all and bring someone new that can do the job.

    • Anon says:

      The photo credit for those pics is Fameflynet Pictures – a professional photo agency: If they were sold by an agency I think the likelihood is they were not cameraphone snaps taken by an amateur.

      • Allegra says:

        Sorry my english…
        When Tom was shooting The Nigh Manager last year in Devon someone took pictures from a far. It was not a fan , it was a professional.
        This person took sneak pics during the shootings without the crew´s permission. Later when a fan (Torrilla) posted in her blog , someone complained to Tumblr and they took her blog down because of copyright.
        So I´m saying even in the remote or perhaps difficult access , there is a possibility that someone try to take pictures of famous people in order to profit from them .
        Just look for : Tom taking a lunch break on the set of The Night Manager

    • InvaderTak says:

      Hes also promoting something. Pap calls are part of the game and it a foolish to think he doesn’t play. I don’t care about some airport pics. If he calls them for his morning coffee run then I’ll side eye all day. It’s also possible that people knew he was going to be here at that time and he pros showed up on their own. It is a major city and someone made a buck because they were professionally licensed. At least he has a smile and a wave and doesn’t look PO’ed like other celebs. That’s fine with me and really isn’t attention grabbing imo. He can’t avoid everything.

      • Dara says:

        Agree 100% to all of this. Everyone associated with ISTL is working hard to spread the word about the film so it makes sense if there was a quick phone call to a photog – no shade from me either if it’s work-related.

        His Colbert appearance also had him trending on both Twitter and Facebook (I think), and perhaps that increase in profile made it worthwhile for a local freelancer to take a chance and hang around the airport. And having a Marvel actor in DC is enough of an event to make photos marketable – even if it were just to the local market.

        I can easily make a case for both scenarios.

    • TotallyBiased says:

      No one had to call the paps. His PR sidekick for this trip tweets every flight they take. If a pap thinks pics of him will sell ( and given his clickrate right now, that seems a safe assumption) all they need do is follow her on Twitter.

  34. A.Key says:

    Well “women” aren’t all the same, shocker, we’re all different with different personalities and needs. Way to lump 4 billion people into the same pot.

    I absolutely hate it when people comment on my appearance. I can look the way I look and I’m not asking for anyone’s approval.

  35. Phoebe says:

    Has anyone seen the interview he did with Mark Hoppus during the Avengers press tour where Mark asked him who had a better ass- Paltrow, Johansson or Evans and he answered Chris Evans and then proceeded to go on a 4 minute speech about how Scarlett Johansson worked harder than everyone and how great her stunt work was and what a great person she is? He took that total misogynistic question and turned it on it’s head.

    I don’t know why so many of you are constantly picking apart everything he says to try to find something to be offended about, it is the Sun after all- it’s not a bastion of journalism. Cut the guy some slack!

  36. Maria says:

    He’s mansplaining. He strikes me as a nice guy pc guy but his upbringing doesn’t exactly scream diversity. He’s had a fairly insulated wealthy life experience part of the 1% not who I am looking to for thoughts on feminism or diversity. When he talks about women his sisters are like him very wealthy silver spoon experience. To be honest he seems really inexperienced for a 35 year old.

    • spidey says:

      I think by diversity he meant women are different from each other mentally. Nothing to do with upbringing.

    • Andrea says:

      I loathe the complaints that if you grew up wealthy, you are not entitled to an opinion. I grew up wealthy too (not as wealthy as him but still compared to the average American I did) but I am still entitled to my own opinions.

      • Jessie says:

        @ Andrea

        Who said you or Tom are not entitled to an opnion? Opnionate away.

        It’s always quite strange when wealthy people act as if they aren’t allowed to have a voice. After all the world is ruled by the wealthy….

        Oh and I grew up upper middle class so I am not some class warrior. I just can’t stand it when those of us who had a privileged background play the victim card.

      • Allegra says:

        Penny posted before that Tom´s sister are very intelligent and accomplished students. They also went to Cambridge university, had very good grades and the eldest also went London School of Economics.
        And I think he said once that they are more intelligent than he is. So how can someone be condescending or patronizing people that have that intellectual level ?
        Certainly , not him.

      • jammypants says:

        On the other end of the spectrum, I grew up poor as fuck, but I don’t hold it against people who are better off than me. I don’t have a bone to pick.

      • ell says:

        you’re missing the point. i also grew up in a well off family, however that means my experience is limited when it comes to certain issues. so i can have an opinion of course, but i should also know when to sit down and let others speak because something is beyond my knowledge and experience.

      • jammypants says:

        Hey now, then you are speaking for people who are well off, saying they need to watch their space :P

        I’m just messing. But really. I re-read this quote several times. I don’t see anything wrong with it at all. The outrage is hyperbolic here.

        “My sisters are very strong-minded, independent women — as is my mother — and I’ve learnt a lot from them. When I was about 16, I had friends who had grown up exclusively around men and they didn’t understand women at all. I like to think that through growing up with my sisters I have a sense of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things.”

        He says it so clearly: “growing up with my sisters I have a SENSE of who women are, of their needs, their diversity and all those lovely things.”

        The dissecting of such simple words while adding so much loaded unintended meaning makes me think of my English classes where you have to diagram every part of the sentence haha!

      • ell says:

        honestly, tbh i’m not that bothered by what he said, albeit i don’t particularly like it either. that type of ‘feminism’ is not for me, it bugs me when celebs go on with those buzzwords ‘strong minded’, ‘independent’ etc. it feels crowd pleasing and disingenuous to me, and also a bit patronising. as a feminist i want to be equal, i want to be talked about as you would talk about a man. that’s the equality i want to see more of.

        other than that, i find the ‘knowing who women are’ to be just clunky phrasing. i already admitted i can’t with TH though, so while i’m not pulling my disagreement out of my arse as i am truly not fond of TH’s outdated idea of feminism, if these things were said by someone i like, for instance oscar isaac, they would still annoy me but probably less.

      • Cranberry says:


        Thank you. Thank You, Thank You.

        Obviously it needs to be spelled out for some people cause they’re just too eager to run him through the mill.

      • jammypants says:


        haha I’m sorry, I’m finding this all so silly! there is no single bad or unintended meaning behind these words. In fact, people are ripping into actual positive words. What a funny lot we are. In this regard, he was asked specifically about women. Would people prefer he say that he like the opposite of strong, independent women? I love that we have an actual male public figure who’s very supportive of women and we are tearing him down for that? I’ll take any decent ally I can get on my side of this ongoing battle when there are the likes of Trump who are completely anti women and genuinely wants to punish women for wanting to have their rights protected.

        I don’t find his views outdated in the least. His views on women are thus:

        He wants fair work compensation for women.
        He completely believes in realistic portrayal of women on the screen.
        He finds in the 21st century, the fact that women still get treated like second class citizens absolutely appalling.
        He’s completely anti female oppression in poor, less educated countries (his passionate articles on FGM makes it clear).
        He’s very supportive of his female directors and costars at every turn. He even writes op-eds on them, doing exhaustive homework on each.

        So to claim he’s outdated in his thinking is disingenuous. I’ll leave your stance on your bias against him for personal reasons at the door. That’s your right. The rest I doth protest. ;)

        @Cranberry, to be fair to ell, she already said she is less lax on him since she dislikes him. I find it refreshing for those who admit that. I don’t see ell in every single Tom thread ready to tear while hate-watch and follow everything he does/

    • spidey says:

      Not a case of playing the victim card Jessie, she was just stating an opinion.

    • lilacflowers says:

      “He’s mansplaining. He strikes me as a nice guy pc guy but his upbringing doesn’t exactly scream diversity. He’s had a fairly insulated wealthy life experience part of the 1% not who I am looking to for thoughts on feminism or diversity. ”

      “Diversity” in the sense that women are diverse from one another. Women are not all the same. Not “diversity” in the sense of different races or different economic classes, but “diversity” in the sense of being different from one another. No, that is NOT mansplaining and it is not about the 1% and seeing it as either is very narrow.

  37. ennuiarethechampions says:

    Between “probably in the kitchen” and the idea that he is waiting for EO to propose, soooooo muuuuuuuch trollllllllling. LOL.


  38. Lord says:

    Jesus. I clicked on this post because I was asking myself why the eff there were so many comments and what did I read? TH sounds patronizing?! I have never laughed so much in my life. Are we really talking about the same guy? Just because he mentioned the hair cut? Oh Jesus…. No further comment. Hiddleston is everything but definetely not patronizing or rude. As for Allen. No one can excuse his part here. He should have never worked for that ####….. End of the story. At least for me.

    • Cranberry says:

      Regarding Woody Allen that’s pretty naive. I don’t like WA either, but the film industry is too cut throat to turn down good opportunities or good roles. Obviously Scarlet Johansen and Cate Blanchett feel the same.

    • jammypants says:

      meh I’ll give him a pass. I had zero clue about gross, creepy, rapey Woody Allen until the Blue Jasmine Oscar run when all the press came out, which was way after Midnight in Paris. If he sounds supportive after that shitfest, then yea, I’d peg my esteem of him down a few notches. I felt more grossed out at the actors who said they’d work with him again.

      • Allegra says:

        I never liked him nor his movies.
        And I don´t know who is worse WA or Harvey Weinstein

      • Cranberry says:

        jammy, Tom did not take sides or sound supportive of WA. As usual he spoke in complimentary terms of WA’s skill as a film maker and all the films he’s managed to pump out over the course of his career, appox. one per year for the past 50 yrs.

        In fact Tom gave the impression that he didn’t really speak to WA much at all. Tom said WA tends to be very hands off style of directing and doesn’t say much in directions. He just sits behind the camera and doesn’t interact. Apparently WA has a team of people that have worked for him though the years and he depends on them exclusively because they know what he wants and his tastes, etc. This is especially the case with his casting agent who does all the searching and reviewing of auditions. WA does non of that and hasn’t for years.

        One of the reasons WA is so successful is that his films don’t cost much to make. He writes and directs them himself and has a company of people who literally do all the rest with little or no collaboration with him. I think he only interacts with his most inner circle that he trusts completely to make decisions in his name.

      • jammypants says:


        I’m completely with you on this. My statement was theoretical. I never got the impression Tom was ever supportive of Woody’s child abuse. Ever. When he speaks fondly of directors he’s worked with since then, he doesn’t ever really talk about Allen. It’s usually Branagh, Hogg, Spielberg, and Whedon who usually get mentioned warmly.

      • Cranberry says:


        Just wanted to clarify that Tom said this around the time of Midnight in Paris. As Totally Biased says below he’s make no other comments about WA one way or another since MIP.

        OK, done.

    • lilacflowers says:

      As an attorney, I have to allow people to have faith in our criminal justice system. I know that the vast majority of cases brought to criminal trial, well over 80%, result in conviction. Prosecutors did not believe they could try a case against Allen and win. From what I have heard of the case, a great deal of time was spent with Dylan and her mother, herself an experienced advocate, yet the police and district attorney’s office still believed they would not prevail. So, I cannot take anyone to task for trusting in our system and agreeing to work with Allen. If I were to do so, that would consume most of my time considering how many have worked with him. Of course, others are free to rail all they want, which this thread demonstrates they clearly do, but I will not be taken to task for not joining them.

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        I believe the DA said specifically that he would not be able to prosecute without putting seven year old Dylan on the stand, and that in the end they did not feel she could take the trauma. This is very different from saying that they didn’t have enough of a case. The judges decision in the custody case (in which WA lost all parental rigjts) was scathing.

      • lilacflowers says:

        That is exactly the same thing as saying they don’t have enough of a case. The standard of proof in a custody case is much, much lower. I generally stay clear of the WA threads for the very reason that the people shouting the loudest on them seem to know very little about our court systems or the concept “innocent until proven guilty.” I don’t know what happened between WA and Dylan and very few other people do either.

        But again, that is NOT the point I made. People have a right to have faith in our highly touted justice system and I will not “take people to task” for working with someone who was not convicted. Nor will tolerate being “taken to task” for not “taking someone to task”

      • Miss Jupitero says:

        And my standards for whose work I will consume and admire and who I will work with and associate with are also much lower than the standards needed for criminal conviction.
        I stand by that and cast plenty of shade on people who continue to kiss up to WA. He is not a sacred cow. I think this “well he wasn’t actually convicted!” excuse is idiotic.

        Also say g you would not have enough evidence to convict without putting a child on the stand is very different than saying you don’t have enough evidence. Applying logic here.

      • lilacflowers says:

        Actually, no, you are not applying logic, you are applying emotion.

      • chelsea says:

        I’m impressed that an “attorney” is convinced of the guilt of an accused man in a case with zero evidence (as you suggest yourself) but with a very motivated “advocate” who just happens to be the ex of the accused. Maybe you shouldn’t be getting your “facts” from puff pieces in Vanity Fair.

  39. Allegra says:

    I have a confession to make: I’m huge Celine Dion’s fan. So when she recorded the song I’m Your Angel with R. Kelly i loved. This song still great but I think R Kelly is a disgusting person.
    I also love some of John Mayer´s songs especially those recorded at the beginning of his career like Your Body Is A Wonderland and Room for squares. I know he is a douchebag, too bad that is also very talended guy. And what can I say about Michael Jackson? He is a genius but many people think he was a pedophile.
    So people wil start to judging me because i love these songs?

  40. TotallyBiased says:

    How did Woody Allen become such a big sub-topic in these comments? Wowsers!
    For the scorekeepers, Mr. H has not worked with nor publicly praised WA since the big brouhaha around the Oscars where it became evidently publicly agreed by ‘the majority’ that Allen is bad.
    Take that as you will.

  41. Mewsie says:

    I reconsidered. Comparing the way Chris H and Tom dealt with questions about their stance on women, I decided I buy Tom’s approach more. Chris actually felt the need to bring his dad into the mix, as in his dad respects women as well so it’s an OK (and man-validated) stance. Tom also doesn’t have two women-centric movies coming up and overall I find he is given a lot more hell by people than Chris, who is super “safe”, appealing to family audiences and always playing the family card. Over the years, Chris has forged this non-controversial and completely sanitized public image that I cannot relate to. The people I love most are imperfect. I am imperfect, I often say the wrong things and dig myself in deeper while trying to fix things… So I can relate more to Tom than to Chris.

    It was strange to watch even some of my most anti-feminist friends show up for Chris after he said he was a feminist. Also, he got zero shit for that, and literally every other male or female actor who wore the “f-label” proudly got either mocked or dragged for it. My guess is it’s because Chris has this Stepford Husband front, the perfect family man persona that most people find the dreamiest. Tom hasn’t rushed to get a Hollywood-grade wife and have many kids, so he gets penalized for that.

    And one more thing: Tom did not grow up “wealthy”. His family were not on benefits and had some financial ease, but they were not as rich as his classmates’ families. What they and later Tom had was CONNECTIONS from going to the right schools and hanging out with the right people.

    And for a man who grew up with separated parents (people always creepily assume that if your parents divorced, you are bound to be a broken adult) and being under constant scrutiny, he turned out amazing.

  42. Grant says:

    I can’t with this guy. He’s so twee and up his own ass. Can’t wait until he fades away into obscurity after the Loki stuff is but a distant memory.

  43. Cranberry says:

    Let’s see if we can get this beeaatch over 300.

  44. Mewsie says:

    Thoia Thoing is still in my workout playlist, although I think R Kelly is a douche. I can sort of understand Tom still liking some of the music.

  45. TotallyBiased says:

    Context on the playlist, as well:
    As was pointed out above, he was on an hour long show where he had to answer specific questions on music preferences. Do I think it’s great he picked an R. Kelly song? No, and that piece of *** certainly isn’t getting any of my business. But using the node connection business model and extending it to boycott anyone who admits themselves to listening/liking even one piece by all of the ‘artists’ I refuse to support would, I fear, leave little left at the end of the day.
    What I would LIKE to see is the interviewer/podcast host challenging his guest’s choices when they mention an artist who is also scum. Have a discussion about it!

  46. TotallyBiased says:

    I suppose the most dedicated Dragonflies are off seeing the movie today.