For the PH video all the boy needs is Paris Hilton for people to view him as attractive and “worthy” while a 14 year old girl would need to make her body over because if she didn’t then people would look at Bloom as if he’s mentally off.

I have to make my body over for Orli?

Crikey.

See you at the gym, everyone.

;)

It’s just that in the case, he wasn’t.

So he wasn’t contributing to the “beautiful women are accessories and status symbols” meme? Come on already.

Why, because someone cannot be both a victim of oppression and oppressive himself?

Of course someone can. It’s just that in the case, he wasn’t.

Anyway, I think we’re starting to go around in circles a bit. It’s been a fascinating discussion … chasms seem to separate us on our views on this thing.

What do you mean, “deemed to deserve”?? You don’t see the jock asshole “antagonist popular guy” getting off easy? I didn’t notice him or ‘Elizabeth Cuthbert’ get their faces shoved into toilets. I think the notion that now teen-boy and “Paris” are somehow perpetuating some new patriarchal regime is absurd. (Your continuing usage of the “nerd” epithet to denigrate teen-boy, on the other hand…)

Yeah, but a few comments ago, you talked about how humiliating the lunch-tray scene was–the anaphora of the imagery was a clear reference to the boy’s prior status.

You’re conflating the actions of someone who is engaging in blatant, violent, patriarchal behavior (”antagonist popular guy”) with the victim of that behavior. I find this a bit mind boggling.

Why, because someone cannot be both a victim of oppression and oppressive himself? That’s mind-boggling.

I don’t see you applying the same fallacious reasoning to “epithets” like “token” and “arm candy.” Again: explaining the dynamic as presented, not endorsing it. You’re on a blog here, an idle intellectual one, in a comments thread dissecting the cultural subtext of a YouTube video. We’re all nerds. Many of us are scrawny or at least scrawny-oriented; few of us are similar in appearance to the jock or Elisha Cuthbert. We’re not insulting this boy. We’re talking about the way his physical appearance is coded in this scenario by these other people who have presented a collection of images with meaning attached to them.

Except for the fact that you just said that PH is about to help out the boy by virtue of her celebrity and sexual attractiveness. This is what it means to be a token. Her value is as arm candy and a symbol of “I’m so manly, I got this hot chick.”

Exactly.

I think it takes extravagantly tortured reasoning to see any exploitation or ‘tokenizing’ of either “Paris Hilton” the character or Paris Hilton the person in this video.

Except for the fact that you just said that PH is about to help out the boy by virtue of her celebrity and sexual attractiveness. This is what it means to be a token. Her value is as arm candy and a symbol of “I’m so manly, I got this hot chick.”

And for the last time, it doesn’t matter is what PH is doing is consensual. She’s part of a larger cultural script about trophy wives, women as accessories, and no amount of consenting is goign to take her out of context.

cyan:

So let’s look at what happens to the antagonist popular guy … He becomes the loser; his tray is tipped on him while he stares on in disbelief at the nerd and Paris. This scene is symbolic of the violent abuse and humilation that he is now deemed to deserve.

What do you mean, “deemed to deserve”?? You don’t see the jock asshole “antagonist popular guy” getting off easy? I didn’t notice him or ‘Elizabeth Cuthbert’ get their faces shoved into toilets. I think the notion that now teen-boy and “Paris” are somehow perpetuating some new patriarchal regime is absurd. (Your continuing usage of the “nerd” epithet to denigrate teen-boy, on the other hand…)

You’re conflating the actions of someone who is engaging in blatant, violent, patriarchal behavior (“antagonist popular guy”) with the victim of that behavior. I find this a bit mind boggling.

By dint of her celebrity status and sexual attractiveness, “Paris Hilton” the character does a favor for a new neighbor and is able to dispel ‘patriarchal victim status’ from teen boy just by taking a walk with him at his school, an endearing if somewhat schmaltzy idea. She is not coerced into doing this favor in any way by the boy, nor is she compelled by gender-related economics to do so. I think it takes extravagantly tortured reasoning to see any exploitation or ‘tokenizing’ of either “Paris Hilton” the character or Paris Hilton the person in this video.

And, all the more important stuff that already got said.