Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal creator Shonda Rhimes has talked about how often she’s asked about “work-life balance”. “The question drives me nuts,” she says, who points out that her male counterparts would not be asked about their work-life balance. She also spoke about being described as “the most powerful black female showrunner in Hollywood”: “They wouldn’t say that someone is ‘the most powerful white male showrunner in Hollywood’.”

Well, all power to Rhimes for speaking up. However, is this a general observation about the double standards imposed on womankind or, instead, a classic “check your privilege” moment, where bristling at work-life balance inquiries is the exclusive preserve of a certain breed of successful, high-tier, professional women?

This is a recurring issue, regarding the gender imbalance inherent in not only success, but also in the perception of success. How, for women, it doesn’t matter how feted they are in their respective fields. It’s all about how they make it all dance around the maypole of their core domesticity. Forget work, what about the school run and the dishes, the crucial lady stuff: how’s all that panning out? How do you manage to still be a “real” woman? Have you turned into a man yet?

In some ways, this is a media thing. There are exceptions but, generally, male or female, there is nothing duller than an interview subject yammering on about a work project to the exclusion of all personal detail. They’re supposed to be participating in an interview, not a press release.

So, personal detail is not wrong per se. It can be illuminating to hear about attitudes to home, family, sex, romance, ethics, life, death, the whole shebang. And, yes, sometimes, what an exhausting perma-juggling bore it can be. These questions are not suspect in themselves – the problem only occurs if they’re exclusively asked of women.

This is where what one might term the “she-taming” begins. This is a process by which a garlanded female becomes not only feminised, but also “exonerated” by her innate domesticity. The subtext is: “Show us your human side, you smug, over-achieving cow. Dole out some baloney about forgetting the dry cleaning or missing the school play and we’ll contextualise and forgive your triumphs.” Thus the pressure is on for the successful woman to avoid alienating not only men, but other females as well.

Then again, is this happening as much as we think it is? This seems to me to not only concern gender imbalance, but also imbalance among different classes of women. While the likes of Rhimes are pelted with work-life balance questions, other women, who don’t have her career or power, are all but ignored, even though, unlike Rhimes, who presumably (and with no judgment) has staff, these are women (maybe time-poor as she is, but also cash-strapped on top) for whom work-life balance is a real and pressing issue.

Therefore, while Rhimes may feel that she is asked these sort of questions so frequently that it verges on sexist, other more ordinary women may feel they are not asked enough (if ever). They feel (correctly) that unless they are, say, Rhimes or Sheryl Sandberg, no one cares how they manage, or if they don’t. Why should Rhimes care about any of this? Men are not generally called upon to fret their little hearts out about less successful men. The short answer is that she needn’t.

However, this signifies a worrying chasm of misunderstanding between high-tier professional women and their less (obviously) successful counterparts that still needs addressing. Perhaps the tragedy is not that a relatively small group of female high-fliers such as Rhimes is bombarded with “how do you juggle?”-type questions, but that the vast majority of women are not. After all, however irritating those constant work-life balance queries might be, how much worse would it be to be dismissed, devalued and ignored?

Poor diet. Poor outlook. Poor them

A study from the Centre for Diet and Activity Researches (Cedar) at the University of Cambridge, looking at the years 2002 -2012, says that healthy foods now cost three times more than unhealthy alternatives, and that more could be done about this disparity when making health policy decisions.

This corroborates what is already widely known – that, say, fast food burgers are often cheaper to buy than ingredients for home cooked meals. While there is growing interest in low-cost healthy recipes, factor in time and exhaustion for many homemakers, and the quick, cheap option is all too easy to understand.

Nor does it end there. Poor diet is just as swiftly becoming a key social signifier in terms of dumping people on the rungs below “normal” society. In the same way that free school meals used to be, but now involving the whole family group.

Meanwhile, the University of Cardiff angered students by placing an “anti-homeless cage” outside one of its campus buildings, where homeless people had taken to sleeping near warm air vents. The university spoke of potential safety issues regarding gases for anyone blocking the grilles.

However, many students were outraged by the cage, which works in the same manner as studs or spikes, making it impossible for homeless people to bed down for the night – the same kind of thing that happened outside the Regent Street branch of Tesco earlier this year.

How depressing. Increasingly, even rudimentary basics such as decent food and shelter appear to be annexed as near-luxuries that only the comfortably off could afford.

It could be said that we are entering an era where being poor is not only to be pitied, mocked or shamed, it’s also fast turning you into an outlaw.

With friends like Gwyneth, who needs enemies?

Gwyneth Paltrow held a fundraising benefit at her home for Barack Obama, which appeared to go well, if one’s definition of “well” is comical, erring on nauseating. In between some old cobblers about stuff no one cares about (Isis, Ebola), Paltrow gushed about Obama’s dashing good looks, as in: he was “so handsome, it was difficult to speak”.

One would say, “Get a room, Gwynnie”, but remember it was her gaff – she had the pick of the rooms. Obama then thanked her for allowing them all to “crash her house” (how gloriously informal).

He then hymned that he would be sure to take Paltrow along to his next event. Why – to do the catering? Would they be OK with dairy and fat-free acai berry muffins? This bit remains frustratingly unclear.

Sadly, after this outpouring of smoochy celeb-drivel, Obama is officially off my “list”. As this is a family newspaper I can’t say what list, but I’m sure you could take a wild guess.

Moreover, with the future of the Democrats at stake, it would probably be best if Obama and Paltrow were consciously uncoupled with immediate effect, but I’d settle for unconsciously.