“Even in a completely private setting, within a marriage – it couldn’t be any more innocuous than the Middleton situation – and yet people are still saying things like: what was she expecting, she’s famous and she’s got breasts, and therefore she’s got to keep them covered up all the time. I do think it’s a rage against women being sexual on their own terms. We’re perfectly fine with women being sexual, as long as they are objects and they’re passive, and we can turn them on, turn them off, download them, delete them, whatever it is. But as soon as it’s women who want to have any kind of exclusionary rights about their intimacy, we hate that. We say, ‘No, we’re going to make a whore out of you’.”—
This, my friends, is stupid. It is many things, actually, but most of all it is stupid. Photographers with telephoto lenses took intrusive pictures of Ms. Middleton and then published them but Ms. Middleton is at fault for being topless. Because when a woman is nude, she steps outside the boundaries of society’s protections and “deserves” what happens to her? Or because a woman who is a public figure does not deserve privacy even in her own home?
But this article argues that Kate Middleton is too famous to go topless. While I agree that her public position makes her an unlikely candidate for nude beaches, the responsibility for this scandal does not like with Ms. Middleton but with the photographers who took her picture and the editor who printed the pictures. Ms. Middleton has, like the rest of us, a right to be naked in our own homes, vacation or permanent. While an “average” woman in America can rightly prosecute the kind of stalkerish behavior that is a stranger taking (naked) pictures without consent, we deny that protection to the famous. Why does being famous strip (no pun intended) celebrities of the right to conduct their private lives in private?
So my co-mod likes to send me links that she knows will annoy me and this definitely fits the bill. So this will be the quick and dirty version.
Victoria Beckham doesn’t give a fuck if the paps show up at her show. She cares if Anna Wintour and the buyers from Selfridges show up.
To imply otherwise is a) stupid b) ignorant and c) another way in which the contributions and opinions of women are devalued. Because all those female editors and womenswear buyers could show up and it wouldn’t matter according to CDAN because the only real validation is the (male) gaze of the paps.
We’ve all seen the headlines at the check-out counter. “Kristen Stewart Caught.” We’ve all thumbed the glossy pages here and there. “Kris and Rob a couple?” We all catch the snaps. “I like that dress. I hate the hair. Cute couple. Bad shoes.” There’s no guilt in acknowledging the human interest in public linens. It’s as old as the hills. Lift up beautiful young people like gods and then pull them down to earth to gaze at their seams. See, they’re just like us. But we seldom consider the childhoods we unknowingly destroy in the process.
I have been an actress since I was 3 years old, 46 years to date. I have no memories of a childhood outside the public eye. I am told people look to me as a success story. Often complete strangers approach me and ask, How have you stayed so normal, so well-adjusted, so private? I usually lie and say, “Just boring I guess.” The truth is, like some curious radioactive mutant, I have invented my own gothic survival tools. I have fashioned rules to control the glaring eyes. Maybe I’ve organized my career choices to allow myself (and the ones I truly love) maximum personal dignity. And, yes, I have neurotically adapted to the gladiator sport of celebrity culture, the cruelty of a life lived as a moving target. In my era, through discipline and force of will, you could still manage to reach for a star-powered career and have the authenticity of a private life. Sure, you’d have to lose your spontaneity in the elaborate architecture. You’d have to learn to submerge beneath the foul air and breathe through a straw. But at least you could stand up and say, I will not willfully participate in my own exploitation. Not anymore. If I were a young actor or actress starting my career today in the new era of social media and its sanctioned hunting season, would I survive? Would I drown myself in drugs, sex, and parties? Would I be lost?
I’ve said it before and I will say it again: if I were a young actor today I would quit before I started. If I had to grow up in this media culture, I don’t think I could survive it emotionally. I would only hope that someone who loved me, really loved me, would put their arm around me and lead me away to safety. Sarah Tobias would never have danced before her rapists in The Accused. Clarice would never have shared the awful screaming of the lambs to Dr. Lecter. Another actress might surely have taken my place, opened her soul to create those characters, surrendered her vulnerabilities. But would she have survived the paparazzi peering into her windows, the online harassment, the public humiliations, without overdosing in a hotel room or sticking her face with needles until she became unrecognizable even to herself?
Acting is all about communicating vulnerability, allowing the truth inside yourself to shine through regardless of whether it looks foolish or shameful. To open and give yourself completely. It is an act of freedom, love, connection. Actors long to be known in the deepest way for their subtleties of character, for their imperfections, their complexities, their instincts, their willingness to fall. The more fearless you are, the more truthful the performance. How can you do that if you know you will be personally judged, skewered, betrayed? If you’re smart, you learn to willfully disassociate, to compartmentalize. Putting your emotions into a safety box definitely comes in handy when the public throws stones. The point is to survive, intact or not, whatever the emotional cost. Actors who become celebrities are supposed to be grateful for the public interest. After all, they’re getting paid. Just to set the record straight, a salary for a given on-screen performance does not include the right to invade anyone’s privacy, to destroy someone’s sense of self.
In 2001 I spent 5 months with Kristen Stewart on the set of Panic Room mostly holed up in a space the size of a Manhattan closet. We talked and laughed for hours, sharing spontaneous mysteries and venting our boredom. I grew to love that kid. She turned 11 during our shoot and on her birthday I organized a mariachi band to serenade her at the taco bar while she blew out her candles. She begrudgingly danced around a sombrero with me but soon rushed off to a basketball game with the grip and electric departments. Her mother and I watched her jump around after the ball, hooting with every team basket. “She doesn’t want to be an actor when she grows up, does she?” I asked. Her mom sighed. “Yes … unfortunately.” We both smiled and shrugged with an ambivalence born from experience. “Can’t you talk her out of it?” I offered. “Oh, I’ve tried. She loves it. She just loves it.” More sighs. We watched her run around the court for a while, both of us silent, each thinking our own thoughts. I was pregnant at the time and found myself daydreaming of the child I might have soon. Would she be just like Kristen? All that beautiful talent and fearlessness … would she jump and dunk and make me so proud?
There’s this image I have of a perfect moment. It comes to me as a square format 8mm home movie with ’70s oversaturated reds and blues, no sound, just a scratchy loop … there’s a little white-haired girl twirling in the surf. She’s singing at the top of her lungs, jumping and spinning around in the cold water, all salty, sandy, full of joy and confidence. She’s unconscious of the camera, of course, in her own world. The camera shakes a little. Perhaps her mom’s laughing behind the lens. Could a child be more loved than in this moment? She’s perfect. She is absolutely perfect.
Cut to: Today … A beautiful young woman strides down the sidewalk alone, head down, hands drawn into fists. She’s walking fast, darting around huge men with black cameras thrusting at her mouth and chest. “Kristen, how do you feel?” “Smile Kris!” “Hey, hey, did you get her?” “I got her. I got her!” The young woman doesn’t cry. Fuck no. She doesn’t look up. She’s learned. She keeps her head down, her shades on, fists in her pockets. Don’t speak. Don’t look. Don’t cry.
My mother had a saying that she doled out after every small injustice, every heartbreak, every moment of abject suffering. “This too shall pass.” God, I hated that phrase. It always seemed so banal and out of touch, like she was telling me my pain was irrelevant. Now it just seems quaint, but oddly true … Eventually this all passes. The public horrors of today eventually blow away. And, yes, you are changed by the awful wake of reckoning they leave behind. You trust less. You calculate your steps. You survive. Hopefully in the process you don’t lose your ability to throw your arms in the air again and spin in wild abandon. That is the ultimate F.U. and—finally—the most beautiful survival tool of all. Don’t let them take that away from you.
Imagine that this is what you see every time you leave the house. A mob of adults (mostly men) shouting things at you. Now imagine that you are not an adult but a small child. You are only three feet tall, so short you can’t see over the mob of people.
Now imagine that you are four years old and scared and unhappy. You don’t want your picture taken, your mother doesn’t want your picture taken but these adults continue to take your picture, because money can be made off of pictures of you looking unhappy.
And they aren’t just taking pictures of you because you are in the shot with your mom, they are taking pictures specifically of you even if you mom looks away. They are taking pictures of you while you stand there, scared. Imagine that Honor Warren is your child or your niece or you cousin or any child you care about. How would you feel if adults treated your child this way, if they scared your child so badly she cried sometimes? Imagine if they kept taking pictures of her as she cried because they make money off of a child’s misery.
Furthermore, imagine things we can’t show you-things we won’t show you. Imagine that a child you know was in a stroller wearing a skirt and paps were shooting up her skirt so her underwear was visible. My co-mod tells me this is something that paps commonly do to celebrity children, that it is not unique to Honor Warren’s case.
Now imagine if all this was happening to a child you cared about and you couldn’t do anything about it because their mom or dad was famous. And not only famous but “asking for” this kind of attention because they are an actor. Would you smile for the paps as they harassed and terrified your children? Would we accept this behavior in our communities as the price of being rich or famous or well-regarded?
This post is the very definition of concern trolling. x17’s only concern with Rihanna drinking is the money they could make off her public breakdown. “Oh, poor Rihanna, she’s so unhappy. Maybe she will shave all her hair off and we can sell the pics for six figures.”
Couple of things besides making fun of x17
a) I’m glad that x17 is in a position to decide Rihanna’s emotional state.
b) How many pics of drinking/smoking up has Rihanna tweeted?
c) Because no one drinks after funerals, never.
d) “Because I had to.” This could mean ANYTHING. Literally anything in the entire world. But x17 decides it means that Rihanna has been driven to drink.
Look, death affects people and everyone mourns differently but x17’s “concern” seems more about driving Rihanna to drink than being actually concerned about her (none of their business) alcohol consumption.
Also, while we are on the subject, this narrative of Rihanna as an out of control party girl, as opposed to a young woman who works her ass off, is bullshit. (Six albums since 2005, not to mention all her guest spots. Non-stop touring. Also, not to be inappropriate but Rihanna’s body is clearly one that requires lots of effort. Maybe Rihanna does have a problem with alcohol. I’m not her mom, I don’t know. But why does no one talk about how Rihanna is an on-point professional?)
But she parties on her off nights! (The only twentysomething to do so!) So she is two weeks away from rehab. Enough, already! Has Rihanna ever been visibly intoxicated on stage? Are there complains about her performances? Has she been blowing off her professional obligations? No? Then stop with the bullshit “concern”.
Tune in next week for the next installment in our ongoing feature: “fi:ut continues to be “shrill” about how the gossip blogs treat Rihanna”. Look for our book in 2014!
BG scolds Lively for taking pictures of the paps who trail her. Such actions are only productive in the sense that she could post them to instagram. Hahahaha, she is totally over-reacting to strangers who follow her around 24/7. She stood and posed outside GMA because celebs are expected to pose for cameras outside of studios when they are doing an appearance inside. It’s become part of the job. But where BG and I disagree is with the idea that it is part of a celebs job to be followed 24/7. That a women who talks to a pap is scolding and a buzzkill but male celebs routinely punch photographers and those actions are seen as more legitimate than Lively’s action in not wanting to be followed to her next location.
Why is that? Why are we more respectful of a male actor’s efforts to carve out space apart from the paps, to hate and demonstrate against the attention of the pap swarm than we are of female actors? A female actor who covers her face (Megan Fox), talks to a pap attempting to follow her (Lively), or gives the paps the finger (Kristen Stewart) are either considered “sluts” (Fox, Lively) or “bitches” (Stewart, Fox (AGAIN)). But male stars like DiCaprio or Robert Pattinson are considered “serious” or “dedicated artists” and that makes them “uncoperative”. But their attitude to the paps is indicative of their deep love of the craft of acting blah blah blah pretention. But a female star’s attitude to the paps determines whether she is a bitch, a whore or “nice”.
I assume fame is really nice and I think every actor realizes their is a trade-off to be made in being famous. The sheer numbers of people interested in a celeb’s life means that things like their relationships or their families will be of interest to people on a larger scale than if they were an engineer and their lives were interesting only to their families, co-workers and toddler son’s play group. But no one should have to give up their privacy in the way that seems to come with mega-fame.
The obvious example is, of course, the Twilight actors. Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson got involved with a project that, at the time, was based on a popular but not widely known YA novel. By the time the movie was released it was a cultural touchstone and they were being followed to the bathroom. Actors don’t “ask” for “excessive attention” (however you define it) by being famous or successful or getting involved in a project that blows up beyond the stratosphere. Being a talented entertainer does not make someone other than human.
To bring this back to Lively, she has every right not to be followed by people against her will and to be concerned about her safety because of the people who follow her constantly. This is serious, whether BG will acknowledge that seriousness or not.
Kristen Stewart showed up at a friend’s wedding in jeans. This clearly means she is a raging egomaniac. First, for showing up in the first place because seeing as how she is KStew, she is obviously taking attention away from the bride! Second, for wearing jeans to a wedding that gossip sources are SURE was a formal wedding because RO obviously saw the invitation. Third, for not wearing a dress loaned to her by the groom’s sister. How ungrateful! Fourth, for being rich.
Here’s a thought: maybe Stewart’s friend was unclear when she conveyed to Stewart what the appropriate level of dress was. Maybe Stewart’s friend just didn’t care what the level of dress was and Stewart felt under-dressed which is why she attempted to change. Maybe the Zac Posen didn’t fit her. I know all women are the same size, but it does happen that a dress that fits one woman doesn’t fit another. Maybe…maybe…maybe. The point is that I don’t know what happens and neither do the gossip sites. Neither do they care when it gives them the opportunity to paint a picture of Stewart as an ungrateful bitch.
Because that is the narrative around Stewart: she won’t smile, she’s mean to Lagerfeld (gasp!), she dresses in a way that is not gender performative enough for the gossip blogs, she won’t talk about her private life, she flips off paps. Any one of these things would be enough to create the image that KStew is an ungrateful bitch but the fact that she does all of them means that everything she ever does is only going to reinforce the bitch narrative. She could give up acting and go to Haiti to work in an orphanage for sick children and she still would be an ungrateful bitch. The problem is that Kristen Stewart is too famous for the gossip blogs *not* to cover but she acts above her station (ie her “station” as a young, Hollywood “starlet”).
Just as Rihanna acts in a way that gossip blogs disapprove of (too sexual, too frank for a woman) condemning her to a constantly reinforced narrative about her “sluttiness”, Stewart’s perceived lack of gender performativity (too aggressive, doesn’t wear enough dresses, doesn’t smile enough, claims a private sphere for her own) means that she is condemned to a reinforced narrative as a bitch.
Millions of young women, however, respond to Stewart because she has created a space for herself that girls are told they don’t need, that makes them less than desirable. I know nothing about Stewart as a person, but her public persona as someone who insists on boundaries and reinforces those boundaries in her public appearances and conduct is an admirable example for young women and girls.
Too often women are told that it is rude to say “no”, to insist on privacy, to tell another person they are standing too close or asking inappropriate questions. Stewart does those things, in public, with every interview where she refuses to answer questions about her private life, with ever red carpet where she wears sneakers, with her seeming dislike of the paps who shadow her everywhere. Stewart says “no” over and over again. I admire her for that, even if the gossip blogs never will.
My Version: Conventionally Attractive Pregnant Woman Seen in Native Country
There are a couple of things going on in these articles (and countless more like them) that I have wanted to address on this blog for a long time.
A) Pregnant couples don’t owe the public any information about their family.
B) Saying the father knows that the mother is “mom material” is gross. Because, newsflash, a woman doesn’t need the approval of a man to be pregnant and if a couple is pregnant, they obviously consider the other to be “parent material” and there is no need to repeat the point.
C) The article on Gisele actually talks about how she is “hiding” her bump. So maybe it is time to pick one?
D) Except let’s not. Because this whole “flaunting” construction when we are talking about pregnant woman walking in public is so, so offensive. It falls into this false notion that a pregnant woman is “flaunting” her bump because she has fulfilled her highest purpose in this world. It sends the message that a woman’s body’s function is to be seen. Finally, it sends a really stupid message about acceptable female behavior, that being pregnant in public is not acceptable female behavior. My fellow tumblers, this is the dumbest thing ever.
In conclusion, women are allowed to wear the clothes they want, be pregnant and go out in public. All at the same time.
The face that launched a thousand bottles! — Chris Brown, Drake in wild club brawl over Rihanna New York Post, found here
I am having a problem, tumblrverse. This problem is the repeated slut shaming and general grossness with which gossip sites cover Rihanna, specifically with regards to the recent Drake-Brown bar fight.
“So why do these publications do so well? After appearing on the cover of US Weekly’s “Did They or Didn’t They? A Plastic Surgery Guide for Dimwits” issue and battling for a retraction, I learned that the magazine profited $1.4 million from the issue alone (money I felt should be donated to Operation Smile or an equally well-managed charity helping those in need of reconstructive surgery). The concept of ‘Stars Are Just Like Us!” makes us feel connected to lifestyles that can sometime seem out of this world. Yes, celebrities are just like us. They struggle with demons and overcome obstacles and have annoying habits and battle vices. That said, I would be absolutely mortified to discover that some 15-year-old girl in Kansas City read one of these “articles” and decided she wasn’t going to eat for a couple of weeks so she too could “crash diet” and look like Scarlett Johansson. I’m not normally the type to dignify toilet paper rags with a response, but in this case I feel it’s my responsibility to comment. In a way, I’m glad some dummy journalist (and I use the term “journalist” loosely) is banking on my “deflating” so that I can address the issue straight from my healthy heart. For more information on eating disorders and/or treatment options, please visit: http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/”—Scarlett Johansson: The Skinny
[content: stalking] Janet Charlton wonders if Alec Baldwin is REALLY being stalked since the woman accused of the crime is actually conventionally attractive, unlike Madonna’s stalker. Because in celebrity gossip land, stalking is scary, but the price we pay for fame and surprising when it happens to someone we don’t think is famous or pretty enough and how does a woman who Janet Charlton thinks is pretty fit in that (utterly flawed BULLSHIT) narrative? It’s so confusing! It must mean something is AFOOT with the facts, not that, you know, Janet Charlton is writing things that diminish and marginalize a real crime that happens to non-famous people all the time, etc etc.
[edit - I should have said presumed cis in reference to the stalker.]
“Getting plastic surgery isn’t necessarily a sign of “deeper issues”, and beautiful people (whether they were born that way or were surgically enhanced) are allowed to be just as insecure as the rest of us. Moreover, a mother having plastic surgery does not mean her daughter will develop an inferiority complex — and that I can say with absolute certainty.”—
I chose a comment rather than linking you to the post, because this is yet another post from Jezebel that makes me really really think less of people who still call Jezebel a woman-friendly place or link to it as such. It’s not just trigger warnings or lack thereof, it’s all of these things, the steady accumulation of body policing and slut shaming and tee hee at Ryan Seacrest’s speculated orientation.
“Yesterday afternoon Matthew McConaughey ran errands in the ‘Bu, but it looks like little Levi had no problem with that! We caught the inquisitive tot and his nanny on a nature walk nearby their home, and he seemed utterly enthralled with his surroundings. Okay, maybe he was curious about the cameras too, but he’s definitely not shy at all! P.S. Those are the tiniest laceless Converse we’ve ever seen…so cute! Where was his mama though? It’s not like she has a full time job or anything!”—
Yeah, it’s not like the mom has anything to do besides being a mother! (Also, I LOATHE paparazzi pics of celebrity children when their parents aren’t present.)
This lovely crap piece of sexism comes from X17 online, October 26, 2009. I’m cleaning out my long saved queue and thought I’d share.
I don’t mean to give anything away - but the “malfunction” is that Jessica Alba, wearing underwear, crosses her legs in a short skirt and photographers positioned above her snapped a picture that showed she is, indeed, wearing underwear. Cause you know, the malfunction is hers, not that photographers make money off taking shots of women from awkward angles to get any look at their underwear. Malfunctioning WOMAN in her CLOTHES!
This is from Monday, but I thought it was worth noting that while a vast majority of the comments were along this line to Jezebel’s “tee hee” post, it hasn’t been edited or changed. And the same editor from Jezebel just posted something about how awful and vapid it was of Entertainment Tonight to spend half an hour on Angelina Jolie’s leg. (I don’t disagree with that, to be clear.) Apparently, it would not have been awful and vapid to make fun of Ryan Seacrest for his perceived sexual orientation, though, right? Right?
I’m just saying, I’ve been hating on Jezebel for a very very long time and I’d hate for these kind of “small” awful posts to be missed. They deserve a lot more scrutiny than what they already get, especially with so many sites linking to them as if they weren’t full of homophobia and slut-shaming among other crap.
If you read the blind item, please please be warned for violence and abuse. Which is why I chose to quote a comment which sums up my response completely and not the blind item itself. So either it’s made up, or someone decided it was better to tell BuzzFoto who, you know, don’t want to be sued and preferred the hits from publishing it to doing anything about it.
And this comment was not a majority sentiment - mostly the comments on CDaN stick to lamenting child abuse with wishes of violence or trying to guess who it is.
“Addiction is not a fame problem. Addiction is a medical condition. Fame may make it less treatable—-there are limitless soft places to land that prevent the proverbial “rock bottom” and paid entourages who will make attempts to block a star from an interviewer’s challenging questions. Few are the friends who would fight back the dealers who arrive on set, or in the hallways of the studio. Even then, no one can save an addict but herself. Addiction can’t be prayed or wished away. Recovery requires great vigilance. Former cocaine addicts are unconvincing as “casual” drinkers and those who love them must also carefully monitor their use of prescription drugs. Addicts need strong, supportive, sober friends who circle them and then rejoin that circle when the addict relapses. Modern stars are simultaneously coddled and mocked for their addiction. Our collective voyeurism, schadenfreude and hypocritical rush to judgment would suggest that our own families are junkie free. In a country where addiction is criminalized rather than being treated as the national epidemic that it is, we were both too quick to accept Whitney’s post-divorce narrative of recovery and far too willing to gaze upon her many public car wrecks. It is especially heartbreaking when our most widely beloved artists, those whose work gives our lives such rich meaning, are lost in and to the loneliness of addiction. We all wished to see Whitney whole again, but not 48 hours before she died in a Beverly Hills hotel room, she staggered-bloodied and photographed-from a Hollywood club. Cynics will remind you that as Clive Davis’ annual pre-Grammy celebration took place without his beloved muse, the entire room had been anticipating her early death for a decade. But that doesn’t make her death any less jarring. Tonight’s award ceremony has been recalibrated to celebrate Whitney and we wait, cross-toed, for a tribute that’s worthy of our icon. Whitney Houston was a featherweight, grand beauty, a whale of a singer and a fragile, tortured superstar who is finally free of her addiction. Her body of work is an eternal testimony to her dignity, grace and her out-of- this-world ability. Her life, which only those closest to her will ever truly know in full, tells a more complicated story”—WHITNEY ELIZABETH HOUSTON 1963-2012 - Entertainment & Culture - EBONY (I saw the link to this through Racialicious.)
To quote: Ben Affleck was spotted with daughters Violet and Seraphina at the farmers market in Pacific Palisades over the weekend, and the actor looked absolutely thrilled to be on daddy duty! Er, right?
Yeah, Affleck’s expression has everything to do with being a parent and nothing to do with the photographers facing him down. Also? He’s a parent, just like Jennifer Garner is and why exactly do we assume he’s giving her a break or he’s acting like a mom by simply spending time with his daughters? Oh, right, x17’s blog contains a shit ton of sexist crap writing.
It’s really mind-boggling? When Victoria Beckham, like any woman, famous or not, has her weight and expression and existence policed on a day to day basis? I’m boggled that someone can write it’s mind boggling Victoria Beckham or any woman has insecurities about her body.
I know I shit on radar, with justification, a lot, but they are maybe the only outlet I have seen that has stated the simple truth: they are parents to four children. I find it so much preferable to the line I’ve seen over again about three BIOLOGICAL children and that one Seal ADOPTED. So, thank you, Radar, for that.
Yeah - it’s a downside that only happens to the famous or the beautiful - stalking isn’t a problem that happens for unfamous or not conventionally attractive people. Actually, that is true, because stalking isn’t a “problem,” it’s a CRIME. That happens to people of all kinds and will we ever stop diminishing it by calling these criminals “obsessed fans”?
I was actually like, wha? When she made this joke. Madonna is insulting Gervais by calling him … a girl? How is being a girl an insult? I am so tired of asking that question - I know, the answer is obvious.
“Also, sorry for the double post, but it just confuses me the way people are so damn interested in policing everything this couple does with regards to this pregnancy. If they’re not criticizing the baby’s name, they’re criticizing the completely innocuous way the father has chosen to express his joy, or criticizing them for going to a hospital instead of having the baby at home since they can afford it, or criticizing them for having nice accommodations at the hospital or trying to criticize her for having a C-section before they even know if she had one or not (which isn’t their business anyway). And that’s after months of people vacillating between either insisting she wasn’t actually pregnant and it was a conspiracy or reducing a woman with a 20 year singing career to an incubator by calling her some variation of “pregnant Beyonce”.”—
Today has really crystallized my, I think, irrational dislike of anyone who says Beyonce is faking her pregnancy, or thinks she might be. It feels like this “story” of her “faking it” is being spun by a number of websites who have been harping over and over again on this story no matter what reality is before our eyes. ONE VIDEO where something looks weird and suddenly we’re concocting these conspiracies - okay, I think part of my dislike is that people actually think Beyonce would fake her pregnancy, would enlist her family and friends into playing along and of course, what do you expect from celebrities? It’s not like they’re people. It’s not like BEYONCE is a person or Jay-Z, for that matter.
I’m writing without thinking it through, I just had to vent after unfollowing someone I respect on twitter who was all, “all signs point to yes” about Beyonce using a surrogate and WHAT? I just don’t get people’s willingness to believe the most inhuman stories about celebrities. To assume that the worst is the most likely because, because why?
According to Fashionista. Judging by the front picture selected for each edit, there was one editorial that had a woman of color that made Fashionista’s list of “editorials from 2011 that will stay tacked up on our walls and fill our inspiration boards well into the new year—and beyond.” I’m sorry, that’s gross. Fashionista’s own list of Vogue’s top 10 models included Liu Wen and Joan Smalls, but you know, apparently neither face will be gracing the inspiration boards of Fashionista’s editors.
I don’t pretend to be an expert here - the editorials I’ve seen in full this year have all featured my favorite models; Karlie Kloss and Jourdan Dunn, but. I keep hoping the world will be less gross.
Kristen Stewart Can't Act: Or Let's Spot the Bullshit
First, the though, let’s be clear: Manyfolks think Kristen Stewart doesn’t exactly have Oscar-worthy chops.
"The worst casting news since Jessica Alba was picked to be Sue Storm,” the St. Petersburg Timesmourned when it first heard that Stewart would play Snow White, noting “Kristen’s terrible, terrible lack of acting ability.”
First off, The St. Petersburg Times? Really? That is your best source for KStew’s lack of acting ability? Yes, many people think she can’t act. But many people think she can. You don’t quote those people. Your defense of KStew is NEVER that she can act but that she brings in lots of money, leaving the reader with the impression that *you* think she can’t act.
Also, can I mention how much I think this whole “lack of acting ability” schtick is tied to the fact that she has a reputation for being reserved/unsmiling in photographs? Do you know how many male stars are stone-faced in photographs but that doesn’t cause anyone to talk about their lack of acting ability.
ALSO, talk about a false dichotomy. Kristen Stewart is either Meryl Streep or a talentless hack. Can’t she be somewhere in between? I liked her in The Runaways. I’ve liked her in Twilight. Is she Meryl Streep? No, but that doesn’t make her a talentless hack like this article seems to imply.
Anyone remember right after Titantic when everyone was saying that Leonardo DiCaprio couldn’t act? Wonder how that turned out!
I don’t care if you think Kristen Stewart is far from the best actress of her generation but I do care if you think so for bullshit reasons.
PS In conclusion, Kristen Stewart is adorable and talented.
Taking celebrity women to task, without addressing the weight pressures that actresses are under-or the fact that many of these women lost the weight for roles is nothing but an excuse to body police some women. (Also, are we really critiquing Beyonce’s body? For real?) ANYWAY. This exercise in body policing is, of course, for their own good. We can’t have women thinking they they know what is best for themselves. ESPECIALLY given the cabal of experts many of these women have to advise them on health and nutrition. Nope, we need Shape to tsk tsk them in public? Otherwise they might get above themselves!
I was going to pull a quote from this Janet Charlton post or just quote it in full, but the gross racism was just too much without a trigger warning. Charlton consulted an EXPERT on why the children of Mariah and Nick don’t look like she apparently thinks they should when they have a black man for a father. This is the gross, hurtful “discussion” that passes for gossip for Janet Charlton.
I’ll admit it: Aniston is not my favorite celeb. I’ve never liked “Friends”. But this constant narrative that she is desperate and craves attention is annoying. Why isn’t the narrative that she is confident and happy? George Clooney isn’t married *and* is childless but every tabloid isn’t blaring stories about how he is “desperate” for children. Why is a divorced or single woman of a certain age assumed to be desperate and incomplete while a divorced or single man of a certain age is assumed to be debonair and happy.
Why is childlessness considered a pathology in women?
The truth is that women are all competitive bitches. Mariska Hargitay and her husband aren’t adopting for one of the many reasons that people usually adopt. They are adopting because adopting is a competition. And Mariska Hargitay wants to win that competition. Which is not only a fucked up idea about women but a stupid idea about why people want kids in the first place.
Adopted children aren’t collectibles. They don’t sit on a shelf nicely, and talking about them as if they are something to be aquired dehumanizes them.
When the Washington Post and ABC News start asking questions about whether Beyonce’s baby bump is really a baby bump, then you know Beyonce has some explaining to do. They are also the kind of news organizations that can actually get an answer from Beyonce’s public relations team who said that the rumors floating around the internet yesterday were “stupid ridiculous and false,” and also wanted you to know that coming soon will be Beyonce’s line of maternity wear for women. Seriously. She is going to sell it because well, she is pregnant or wants you to think she is and there is no better way to sell clothes than by wearing them yourself and it is pretty strange to wear maternity clothes if you are not pregnant. I read all the comments yesterday and I would be fully on board about the using the surrogate ala Nicole Kidman, if not for the Croatia photos. That is a tough hurdle to get over. Granted, there were not that many photos and only one photo outlet so maybe they were staged. You are talking about a husband who spent almost $1M in one week of clubbing just on champagne. You don’t think he could afford some special effects?
How about we get a live sonogram? Think she would go for that? -CDAN(emphais & italics mine)
CDAN APPROVES OF THE CARTER-KNOWLES USING A SURROGATE, IN THEORY. HOW NICE OF CDAN. I AM SURE THAT SOMEONE FROM THE CARTER-KNOWLES CAMP WILL BE CONTACTING CDAN BEFORE MAKING ANY FURTHER PERSONAL REPRODUCTIVE DECISIONS. SPECIAL EFFECTS. SPECIAL EFFECTS. STAGED PREGNANCY PHOTOS. Okay, that’s enough with the all caps. I have some questions though:-Who cares if they are using a surrogate and the pregnancy is for…I don’t know. Privacy or whatever. -Okay, just because ABC News is asking questions does not make a story legitimate. It just means that ABC News is a shitty news organization that is one step up from x17. -This whole thing is crap. Usually I aim for Dorothy Parker when I update FI:UT but, truly, this story actively pisses me off. -Why do all the people who do not know the couple get to decide what a “legitimate” pregnant body looks like? We don’t just body police the “standard” celebrity body but we also police the pregnant celebrity body to make sure that women look pregnant in the correct way? -Finally, A SONOGRAM. I wish that I could be sure that CDAN is joking. This is…what gives people the audacity to think they have the right to control, examine and regulate Beyonce’s body? This is invasive and gross. -Like CDAN would believe a sonogram. They would demand to be in the room. Performing the sonogram. Because otherwise how could CDAN be sure that it wasn’t staged? Jay-Z has money, you know. (I guess Beyonce doesn’t? Well, she is a wife so she probably doesn’t trouble her little head about things like money. That’s a husband’s job.)
"She is totally unaware of how she looks, no one dresses like that unless they think they look good," nutritionist Jackie Keller, CEO of Nutrifit in Los Angeles, told RadarOnline.com in an exclusive interview.
Do you know that, unless you look like Karlie Kloss you should not be happy with your body? You must be thin, thin, thin and if you are NOT, do not DARE to wear clothes that are revealing. RadarOnline does NOT APPROVE. Christina is a fatty (with a history of eating disorders!) and should not be happy with her body or show it off.
Do you think Beyonce wants to be bigger than she is? Are they going the surrogate route? There is something going on and Beyonce needs to come clean.
It is so important that Beyonce and Jay-Z tell us all about their medical business. CDAN knows what baby bumps should look like and knows that Beyonce’s is obviously fake. So the Carter-Knowles, a couple so famously private they refused to acknowledge that they were MARRIED, should tell us their personal business. They should release ultrasounds! Their doctor should talk to US Weekly! If she is using a surrogate, that surrogate should do an interview with Glamour magazine. WE DESERVE TO KNOW ALL ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS.
“Christina Aguilera rocked the Michael Jackson tribute show in Wales with her booming voice, but the crowd of 40,000 might have been more intrigued by the size of the diva. After appearing in a dark blue dress, the singer decided to make a wardrobe change and don a black corset that did little to hide her curves. As the performance went on her long blonde hair became disheveled, adding to the poor image.”—
This is just one of many many articles on this - “unflattering choice” is the nicer term being applied, though the same article invited commenters to comment on what they thought of Aguilera. Mostly - people might give a fuck more about Aguilera’s appearance than her impressive voice? REALLY? I suppose it could be true, we all know her weight is the most important thing about any woman rather than talent or it could be that that’s an irrational fucked up sentiment.
“It just seems like no matter what size you are, you just can’t win in Hollywood. Check out our photo gallery of celebrity mothers who have had to face public criticism because of their weight. Tell us, do you think the backlash they received was unfair or do you think some of these stars are a bit too thin or a bit too…. fat?”—
I thought work would be the thing making me the angriest this weekend, but E!Online stepped in, with a headline that encapsulates the disgusting misogyny and slut shaming of crotch shots! I’d say read it, because it’s so blatant, there is no subtext, but not everyone needs to have their anger and despair reinforced.
“Here’s the bottom line: it doesn’t matter if she knew she was being targeted. It doesn’t matter how many other famous women have been victims of hacking before her. It doesn’t matter how much more careful she could have been. Celebrities have the right to take naked pictures of themselves for their private use. In fact, everyone does. And they have the right to keep them private.”—Leaked Nude Pics: Let’s Stop Blaming The Victim (via lovelocket)
I shared this on my google reader with a note about how for every vicious thing Jezebel decried, you had to wonder why the fuck PHilton is linked every single damn day in the Dirtbag. Now, that might have changed. I’ve stopped tracking and I don’t read anything Dodai writes on Jezebel. But I can tell you long before PHilton decided to be “nice,” it was every day. Dodai’s response on my old blog was that they had to link to the number one source of gossip on the internet. OKAY!
Anyway, this jezebel commenter said it better than I did.