I do adore Dolly, but….
She’s cultivated the image and marketed it.
It’s a global image.

In Iraq I they called the enemy tanks Dolly Partons because of the double armour bulges. Just like Mae West life jackets.
Yet, neither of these women, in one’s wildest imagination, could be called slaves to the Patriarchy. They both screwed with the world and won. It’s called Chutzpah!
Zuzu is right…gotta laugh sometime.

The idea is not that Dolly Parton is fungible, but that Pamela Anderson is starting to resemble Dolly Parton, to the extent that she could step into Dolly’s shoes a la the Dread Pirate Roberts.

It’s supposed to be funny. And it is, if one unclenches one’s sphincter.

This:

“I’m developing a new theory: that Dolly Parton is an enterprise run almost identically to that of the Dread Pirate Roberts. So when the Dolly Parton we know grows weary and decides to retire, she identifies a replacement who will seamlessly merge into the life of Dolly Parton and carry on the Dolly Parton name and brand, as if nothing had ever happened. That way, Dolly is ageless and lives forever, and people will never have to know what a dark and woeful place the world would be without her and that hair, and the breasts that unwittingly prepared a nation to cope better with Anna Nicole Smith.”

is hard to read as anything other than “Dolly-knocking.” It characterizes her as completely fungible, a “name and brand” defined by her appearance, rather than her talent, which by most accounts is quite formidable. Even if you don’t like her singing, she has written some very sucessful songs that have been hots for other performers. The reference to Anna Nicole Smith makes no sense to me; clearly it is intended as an insult.

I commend to you the documentary: “Searching For Debra Winger” (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318049/ ) for one easily digestible account of the way women “celebrities” have their careeers tied to their ability to reach and sustain a certain level of a particularized sort of beauty, regardless of their underlying talent as actors, or musicians.

Jill, why the guilt? I say Go Fug Yourself fully deserve sincere guilt-free pleasure.

Because, like Ann says,

I find Go Fug Yourself pretty appallingly anti-women, as it seems to be dedicated to mocking the hair, bodies and clothing of primarily female “celebrities.”

Don’t knock Dolly!

There has been no Dolly-knocking.

I’ve long felt that Dolly Parton takes a very feminist approach to her appearance – her blond wigs, large breasts and uber-flashy clothes are intentionally over the top, mocking and satirizing the expectation that female performers need to look a certain way, regardless of their underlying talent. See e.g. this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Tv_snl_dolly_parton.jpg
But don’t let me ruin your fun.

She was so cool and collected. Her intelligence came through her smily country-girl put on. She cut him down, made him look like a little stupid man all the while smiling for the camera, playing her part as cool as ever. A women in control every mintue. I always respected her after seeing that.