fredfelt
Mostly unknown member
Fact is, when you get rich cunts telling poor people how to "make do and mend" (like most of us don't have a fucking lifetime of experience of doing so) and how to get a nutritious meal from a dog chew, you know that they're not interested in addressing the primary problem (poverty and the effects of poverty), only in picking at the edges and, possibly, in deriving benefit from representing the victims of poverty as victims of their own actions by representing a cliche of a "poor person" as representative of most people in poverty.
These programmes will, for the most part, be "preaching to the converted". What some people don't appreciate is that the way these programmes represent the targets of the programme to those that aren't the targets of the programme, is as much the primary purpose of these programmes as "make do and mend" and "healthy eating" are.
Would you find it acceptable if the targets of such programs / books were, for instance, people on low incomes who are looking to improve their cooking skills? How much difference would it make to you if the presenter was a well known cook (ie most likely to be rich) or someone who's unknown?