There’s a great article up on Pop Matters about the gender divide in pop culture. The author asks, “Are celebrity “girls” really the only gender that’s “gone wild”? Or has the media gone mad — and misogynistic?”
The media’s unrelenting fascination with and gleeful debasement of female celebrities whom they’ve deemed “bad girls” is at an all-time high. As for “bad boy” behavior? It’s understandable and allowable…even laudable. Nothing short of truly bizarre behavior, a la Tom Cruise or Michael Richards, will garner anything remotely like the harsh treatment that befalls female celebrities for behaviors that should, in some cases, draw compassion rather than moralizing judgment.
She follows with a series of examples which are well worth the read.
Then there’s the new Marc Jacobs women’s wear ad campaign — featuring 12-year-old Dakota Fanning. Now, I’m a huge Marc fan — if I could have unlimited access to the clothing of a single designer, it would probably be him — but this is, as Perez Hilton put it, wrong on so many levels. The sexualization of a child is just one aspect, though — there’s also the fact that this ad is for his women’s line. They had to specially make the clothes for Fanning, because she’s 12. Is fashion advertising really so far gone that a pre-teen girl is now the ideal that grown women are supposed to strive for?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 80 comments }
In the infamous Vanity Fair Hollywood issue with the clothed middle-aged Tom Ford juxtaposed with naked teenaged Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightley on the cover, there was a picture of Dakota Fanning in a strapless dress.
Yes.
Explain to me why I want to buy clothes that have been custom made for a literal 12-year-old?
When people say the ideal beauty standard is pre-pubescence I always thought they meant that figuratively.
Don’t you remember Yves St. Laurent’s Taxi Driver Ho-Wear fashion line featuring Jodie Foster in the mid-70s?
It is wrong on so many levels…It’s also perhaps the only time I agree with Perez Hilton’s framing of a pop-culture moment. Usually, though I do love some good gossip, I find his labeling of virtually everyone woman as “bitch “whore” “fat” or “slut” makes my skin crawl. And the fact that he reaches millions of readers a day makes me wonder about the influence his labels are having.
I’m sure I’ll get accused of not having a sense of humor. And maybe I don’t when it comes to negative portrayals of women, particularly on what must be one of the most heavily trafficked blogs out there.
There’s an episode of AbFab in which Patsy’s editor Magda comments, “If the models get any younger, they’ll be chucking fetuses down the catwalk.”
I hate Perez Hilton too. The only reason I linked to him is because he had that photo, and I found it via Google search. I never read him.
I should’ve known better than to peek at the comments. The very first one called Fanning ugly, a theme which continued as far down as I looked (which, ok, wasn’t far). Sure, yeah, it’s wrong on so many levels, but what’s really wrong is that I don’t think she’s teh hot!
Of the many levels on which that’s really wrong, one is the idea that a twelve year old is supposed to turn you on.
If Jacobs was aiming for the (quite lucrative) ‘tween market, it would make sense to use Fanning. But to dress her up in mini versions of adult clothing with no sense of how weird that is? It’s very creepy in that Interview with the Vampire way.
Though I have been saying for a while that we’re reversing the trend of the last 200 years and going back to having children dressed as miniature adults. Which is weird in itself.
I heard that in Japan, 12-year-old girls are the ideal.
Thats what they think is hot. Its gross, if you ask me.
Perez Hilton always seemed to me to be running down black celebs. So I deleted that blog.
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Marc Jacobs has long traded on dressing adult women as little girls (he’s rarely done a collection without gymslips, Peter Pan collars, school uniform style dresses, giant bows, etc). Why not put an actual little girl in the little girl clothes, thus completing the illusion?
Ugh. I think that using a 12 year old as a model is just trying to get around the recent backlash against ultra skinny models. Of course the clothes would have to be made in a size -6! She’s 12 for bob’s sake!
As for using plus size models, good for Lane Bryant. As a woman who has been larger than the ‘ideal’ for many, many years, there’s nothing like seeing a size 4 modeling skin tight clothes for us. It reinforces the idea that there’s a thin woman lurking in my skin, just waiting to wear those clothes, if only I would get my ass on a treadmill. There are a couple of catalogs out there who have been using plus size models for a while, like Junonia, but it’s always good to see more. I wish there were more like Junonia, which can be expensive, but the clothes are well made, and they tend to last.
That blew tea right out m’nose… Good laugh.
Steven: source, please?
zuzu: I was thinking of that quote, but I couldn’t exactly remember how it went … so true :)
Though I have been saying for a while that we’re reversing the trend of the last 200 years and going back to having children dressed as miniature adults. Which is weird in itself. – Mnemosyne
This is a very interesting point: the right wing in this country, realizing that 1950s doesn’t equal traditional (e.g. the 1950s idealized TV family was not a traditional family), seems to have decided to give up their 1950s fantasy and to push for a return to actual traditional values (look at how they’ve gone from, in opposition to gay marriage, embracing “traditional marriage” — which in reality is non-traditional and gay marriage falls under the same rubric as such straight marriage — to inching toward embracing more traditional notions of courtship, marriage by consent of the parents rather than the couple, etc.). So I guess it’s not surprising that our increasingly reactionary culture is turning toward rather more traditional views of childhood, nu?
I guess our new rallying cry as liberals can now be “will someone please think of the children” … of course, it just lays bare how much projection went into the right crying said cry.
That’s interesting. I’ve noticed in a lot of fashion magazines and in ads in magazines like Cosmo and Maxim, they distort the proportions in the photographs. The women have a large head on a small body with huge eyes and a smaller nose, and mouth. They basically have the proportion of a child, which I always thought was creepy. I guess the industry has been alluding to something like this for a while.
They basically have the proportion of a child, which I always thought was creepy. – Jenny Dreadful
I’ve always thought some of these photos were creepy. The worst offenders are those “what the stars are wearing” sorts of photographs which show an image of the person, with the background all erased away, and at such an odd perspective they look like a mis-shapen cardboard cut-out. But I never noticed the child-like proportions this perspective induces in the resulting photograph. I think you might be onto something.
At least now I know why I’m skeeved.
The fear of adult women in adult women’s bodies is simply, well, ever more obvious.
I like Marc Jacobs too – at least for women. I looked at his fall show for men last year and laughed. This was my favorite.
Hugo, what is that? The costume rejects from O Brother, Where Art Thou?
While I can *kind* of see what they might have been going for (maybe a sort of ‘these clothes feel like you’re playing dress-up’ sort of thing, which in and of itself is kind of problematic), I think it’s creepy, too, within the cultural context of super-skinny adult models lacking secondary sexual characteristics.
I wonder if they actually made the clothes to fit her, or if she *still* had to lose weight to fit into them?
As for Lane Bryant, I like them but they’ve been using real-sized models forever, it’s hardly news. And they’re a little vanilla for me. I prefer Torrid or b&lu.
I don’t recall seeing Tom Cruise walking around with his dick sticking out of his zipper.
Exactly, evil_fizz, exactly.
#21: NEWSIES!
I’ve pretty much made the switch from Perezhilton to Dlisted when I want gossip – seems to be where most of his sourcing comes from anyway, and it makes me sick that he’s so friggin’ sexist but yet jumps anyone’s shit for being homophobic. Total hypocrite.
Isn’t Dakota Fanning starring in a movie where she’s raped by her dad in one scene?
I don’t really think that dress is crazy-sexxee, but there is still something disturbing about using a 12 year old as a model.
I”m not going to defend the media, but I will have to say that the comparisons go a bit further than than.
Blix is right, we haven’t seen Tom Cruise or Ben Affleck with their dicks out. Britney flashed her vagina about three times in one week. She also shaved her head in public (and in full view of a photog, even the woman who ran the shop asked if she wanted the shades down and she said no) and hit a photog’s car with an umbrella, which was a sad public meltdown HOWEVER, Ben Affleck has done none of that. He just checked himself into rehab after gambling too much in Vegas and partying with strippers, which was well documented (although there were few, if any photos).
If Affleck had shaved his head, flashed his dick, or attacked a papparazzi’s car with a make shift weapon then perhaps the comparison would have been warranted.
Keith Richards has been a drug addict for DECADES, everyone knows it and that’s all anyone expects of him. It would be newsworthy if he stopped taking drugs. Whitney Houston started off as the “girl next door” type and then descended into drug abuse and public crazy behavior with her then husband. I’m sorry but you can’t go on TV and have your husband talk about how he pulls a turd our of your ass, and then act crazy in Israel and NOT be expected to have shit talked about you. When Richards fell out of the tree people talked shit about him too.
I believe Houston’s/Britney’s stories are more popular because it’s a kind of downfall thing, whereas the men haven’t become “downfallen” yet.
Getting out of a car. And nobody would have known about it had photographers not been trying to shoot up her skirt.
Perhaps Britney had a more public meltdown AS A RESULT of being so followed. If the paparazzi had been after Affleck as vicioiusly as Spears, Paris, and Lindsay Lohan (I remember headlines about nothing more than them going out and partying all night – why weren’t we so concerned when Benny did the same? He’s got a kid, too), he may have gone apeshit on them. Hell, Michael Richards had a public meltdown where he shouted slurs at people who came to see him, and no one’s writing articles about “Poor Krazy Kramer” still.
Look, I’m not saying she didn’t have a meltdown because of the papparazzi following her continuously. It must suck to have that happen and it also must suck to not have friends and family be there to talk you down from the ledge.
Ben Affleck went through something similar when he was with Jennifer Lopez, although he wasn’t a young woman and, yes, as a male wasn’t under that much scrutiny but I still don’t think the behaviors are that comparable.
zuzu:
You have Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan as a friend and they have both been photographed repeatedly sans panties (Lindsay Lohan as recently as yesterday at a club with her skirt hiked up). You go out to a papparazzi infested club (when very well you could have gone to any other club away from the spotlight, there are several in Los Angeles besides Hyde but then again if you go to those clubs you won’t be seen) knowing they will be there and knowing they will photograph you as soon as you step out of that car, which has low seats. It’s the papparazzi’s “job” (and I use that term loosely), wait, it’s their MISSION to get photographs of you in compromising situations and you hand it to them on a platter so to speak, and somehow you are off the hook?
I’m not saying she shouldn’t be going out, staying in the house or what have you, but she’d be utterly damned stupid to expect people who are about a moral as dogs to NOT take photos of her vagina.
Let me guess your philosophy on women who “deserve” to get raped.
Why there’s nothin’ on earth like a bona-fide, certified, six-car MONODERAIL!
VULVA, people.
Britney would have to hand out speculums to get people to take pictures of her vagina.
sheesh.
Dear me, is that what you really think?
You don’t know what a vagina is, do you.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen Colin Farrell’s penis before. And I KNOW I’ve seen Jude Law’s. Don’t they have kids too?
Andy Dick’s body turns cocaine into riboflavin. Where’s the shocked scare stories about his partying?
Okay, so I used the term vagina, which is what everyone’s been using so I’ll own up to my mistake. I honestly don’t ever use the term “vulva” for anything but oh well.
Oh my my I was waiting for this:
Mightyponygirl, having had a friend be a victim of rape and the following punishment of trying to bring her rapist to trail (she succeeded in getting him two years in jail) you can kiss my ass for comparing rape to photographing some sociliate’s vulva (happy now?). Had Britney Spears been raped and the excuse used that she wasn’t wearing any panties I would be there with fucking bells on to say that she didn’t deserve to be violated in such a manner, but showing up to an incredibly popular nightclub, KNOWING there would be photogs there and wearing a short skirt with no panties getting out of a low ride car you can’t blame fucking photogs for doing what they are paid to do: GET COMPROMISING PHOTOS OF CELEBRITIES.
I think no woman deserves to be raped. But you can go fuck yourself if you think I’m going to feel sympathy for a woman who probably deliberately set herself up to be photographed sans panties. If she didn’t think that papparazzi were going to take the opportunity to fucking take pictures of her when she put herself in that position, YES, PUT HERSELF IN THAT POSITION, then she’s fucking stupid and it’s still not comparable to what Ben Affleck did.
Good job picking apart TomCody because of semantics. Oh, I would have called it “flashing her vagina” too. Deary me, I must not know what a vagina is…even though I have one!
And I’m sorry, its not that hard to get out of a car without flashing your VULVA.
Oh stop it. Jude Law has absolutely been photographed with his dick in full view, and no one debased him the way they did Britney or Paris. There was a Colin Farrell sex tape, and he’s not subject to the same crap that Paris Hilton is.
Tom Cruise gets the treatment because he’s said some pretty outrageous stuff. Ditto with Michael Richards. But with regards to sex, if anyone thinks there’s no double standard, well, try again.
TomCody, rather than chastising Britney for having the gall to go out in public where there are photographers, maybe we should keep the focus on just why it is that there are packs of paparazzi following her around angling for a beaver shot. And perhaps we could also ask why male celebrities don’t get treated as if they’re in some kind of public peep show.
Now, I don’t know if Britney Spears deliberately set herself up to be photographed in that manner or not.
But, I do know if a stranger took a picture of my vulva (and yes, I would have called it a vagina, too) and sold it for money, then had that picture published everywhere, well I would feel quite violated. Dare I say it, it might feel like a kind of rape.
No doubt it seems like Britney is on a self-destructive spiral and is putting herself in situations where she’s leaving hersef open for embarrasing photos. But really, TomCody, you’re on a slippery slope when you use language like you’re using. Because using the same logic you’re using, she’s also leaving herself open to be raped.
Raping a drunk girl with no panties on and taking an unsolicited photo of the genitals of a drunk girl with no panties on seems to be a difference of degree, not kind.
Why are we arguing over teh genitalia specifics?
Is there anyone out there who thinks male celebs get the same treatment by photogs and the same judgement from the press (and the public) for similar types of behavior as female celebs do? Really?
And TomCody: unfortunately, your argument is somewhat similar to rape apologists (if less important and thus less offensive). Why should anyone need to apologize for their undergarments or lack of them or for the bodies those undergarments do or do not cover? Ever.
Tiny, because it’s physically impossible to flash your vagina unless you’ve had some kind of prolapse or something.
Not that I care one way or other about the genitalia of anyone I’m not going to have sex with.
I don’t think TomCody is arguing that celebrities should apologise for flashing their bits, he’s just saying that any bits of a celebrity that do get exposed are going to get photographed. Which is something of a “well, duh” statement. The days when a celeb could show off their squishy bits and photographers would refrain from pointing at them are long vanished if indeed they ever existed.
Vanessa, I might agree with you if the photographers were doing things like actually removing Brit’s undergarments to take pictures…
I was at a Disney-related party with Dakota Fanning and her little sister last year. I was so happy to seem them laughing and running around and acting like kids. I’m disturbed by this recent trend in her career.
Flqamethorn:
So, not wearing panties makes it okay for people to sell pictures of your genitals?
Alternatively, is it okay to rape girls who flash you?
Where is the line drawn, exactly? Because it seems to be a big grey area to me.
I don’t really see the problem with these marc jacobs ads. If anything, they are stabbing fun at himself and the industry that he works in. Like someone said above, fashion preys upon making women looking younger and younger, like very tall prepubescent girls. Why not just put a prepubescent girl in her place? Fanning is not a sexual being and her poses do not convey a sense of wanton sexual appeal like many fashion ads, although the one of her mouth being open is slightly suggestive (to me, it looks more like excitement/awe than a want for oral sex). Additionally, Marc Jacobs has always made clothes with a sense of whimsy about them, recalling the years of thoughtless effervescence that we all have at the age of 12, male or female. You can be the classiest girl or boy on the block and never be put down by anyone because you are so confident in yourself. I think that Dakota Fanning is a good example of that. She’s letting out the 12 year old in all women…who can afford/fit into his clothing. She is presenting an inner self, a more casual self, a more confident self. I think that on the surface, this ad can be seen as offensive, but when thought of in the context of his career and his style, it completely fits and is a brilliant choice for the campaign.
Additionally, about this female v. male celebrity dynamic, I completely agree; there’s a very strong hypocrisy between men and women in celebrity and I’m not sure why it’s there. Everyone should get equally scrutinized if they are dressed poorly or have a huge drug problem. If it’s any solace, Pete Dougherty never gets a break from the press, but then again, he smokes crack.
I’m not trying to apologize for the behavior of the papparazzi (have no idea if I’m spelling that right). As a black woman I hate the argument of “that’s just the way it is” but in this case you have an entire culture of girls who are keeping themselves in the public eye through this gossip media.
When you are a celeb and you go to places like the Ivy and to clubs like Hyde and Area where you know there will be papparazzi and you know they’re angling to get a snapshot of you then I can’t bring myself to feel sorry for you and I won’t. Celebrities go to those places to be SEEN. If someone had taken the photo of Britney’s neither regions when she was at her home, or some other non-descript place then I can see her feeling violated. But to do it at the most photog infested clubs three times in a row? No. I do not feel sorry for her.
zuzu, I’m not chastising her for going out in public, I’m chastising her for going out to a papparazzi magnet of a club and then expecting them to make some exception for her when she gets out of a car sans underwear. No one in their right mind would expect any of those people to go: “Oh, it’s Britney Spears who’s out with Paris Hilton. Hey, she’s not wearing any panties. Man, I can’t take a photo of that. That would be rude.”
As I’ve said before: There are PLENTY of clubs in Los Angeles where you can go if you just want to dance and get shit faced with your girlfriends and the paparazzi probably won’t be there for a while anyway (at least not when you arrive, leaving might be a whole other matter).
And zuzu, I don’t know if you read gossip sites like WWTDD, or The Superficial or Dlisted, but they give to the men as good as the women (though women have weight attacks far more than men), even publishing full frontal shots of male stars when they have them, Britney’s husband Kevin Federline was hated on for quite some time until Britney lost it. They also like to tear apart Brandon Davis, a Paris Hilton ex-friend who started the whole “firecrotch” spiel against Lohan. Wilmer Valderramma has taken repeated hits, along with Tom Cruise and a few others. Bobby Brown is just as attacked as Whitney Houston is on those sites.
And I’ll add again that if any of these male celebrities were flashing their dicks and shaving their heads and beating SUVs with umbrella’s then yes, they would be in the media.
It’s not like ALL young female celebs are in the news like this. More often than not you have very specific young women, Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, and a few D Listers like Kim Kardashian (sp) who are repeatedly caught in “naughty” behaviors and *leaked* porn tapes. For most of these women it’s all they can do to keep their names in the press and that’s sad but that’s what they’re choosing to do.
As for my initial point, as much as I hate to say it (and I really do) this is the way Hollywood is run, especially for those NOT on the “A” list and until people like me stop reading gossip sites (I’m trying to cut back and just read the trades) then it’s going to continue to fuel itself. If you don’t want to be photographed in a compromising situation then you can cut that back by NOT going to a club/restaurant where you know you’ll be photographed.
I have respect for stars like Denzel Washington (when was the last time you heard any gossip about him?) and Sarah Michelle Geller who keep their private lives as private as possible.
It’s not that I want these young women to stay at home and be “good” girls, but you really have to know what you’re getting into when you go out to popular clubs.
She was asking for it.
Since when does “being seen” entail a telephoto lens being used for a pelvic exam?
God, TomCody, why can’t you see that your just a dirty rape apologist. It’s Britney’s right to flash her vuvla ! She has no personal responsibility in the matter, none at all!
Oops, make that “your” a “you’re”! I wouldn’t even bother with this, but I know how you must resort to pathetic attacks on grammar.
Setting the logic behind this aside for a sec…
If their invasive tactics are universal and inevitable such that she should expect to end up splashed across the tabloids, then getting splashed across the tabloids doesn’t really reflect on her personality or mores, does it?
Well, if you take 3 bad girls:
(1) Britney Spears – famous for being a prepubescent sexpot whose act was a double entendre designed to attract little girls and dirty old men at the same time.
(2) Paris Hilton – a talentless rich girl famous for being filmed while fucking.
(3) Anna Nicole Smith – a talentless Playboy model who married an aged millionaire for the dough.
Their entire celebrity depends on their being “bad girls.” They became famous by pushing hard at the line that separates pornography from popular entertainment . The media positively pants with excitement whenever it can push that line to bring more porn into general circulation so it just loves women like these- and of course it treats them like “bad girls.” That’s what they are. That’s their self-selected identity.
Why, yes, it is in the media. Briefly. What it’s not is constantly obsessed over. Care to speculate why we’re all sitting around discussing Britney and not Jude Law?
Considering that Britney’s mother/manager pushed her into that sexpot persona before she was 18, I think it’s not an entirely fair comparison to decide that she “chose” that persona the way that Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith did. Look at how hard Christina Aguilera had to struggle to break out of a similar persona, and you could argue that she chose it much more freely at 21 than Britney did at 16.
The media positively pants with excitement whenever it can push that line to bring more porn into general circulation so it just loves women like these- and of course it treats them like “bad girls.” – blix
Even if what you were saying was entirely true (and others have dealt with the factual issues and issues of “consent”) that the media doesn’t do the same when a man is a “bad boy” bespeaks a highly sexist double standard. Heck, even an MRA might get this one, wondering “them wimins are all lucky that they can get celebrity being media bad girls — why can’t we menfolk get the same breaks”.
Even if the women involved are really wanting this kind of publicity (which is a big if, as others have pointed out), they presumably then wouldn’t be doing this sort of thing if it weren’t for the publicity so then even if men aren’t doing this sort of thing for the publicity, it might be more a matter of what results in a big story rather than some inherent “them wimins are more likely to be out of control than mens” difference.
So even if it was all a “career choice” on the behalf of the individuals involved (which it wasn’t entirely), it still begs the question: why the obsession with “bad girls” and not similarly with “bad boys”?
*
On a related note, my coworkers were discussing some rock band (I forget which one) that had a very hawt basist. I made my usual comment about wanting to be a male groupie (grouper?) for a female rock star. My coworker who is the most ardent rock fan of us mentioned that there was in fact an all-female rock band in the 1980s that actually got into deep trouble as “bad girls” — pretty much for doing the same sorts of things that it’s expected and condoned when male rockers do them. Anybody remember the name of the group? My coworker couldn’t remember off-hand …
TomCody, there aren’t plenty of places you can go in LA for a private time if you’re Britney Spears. Photographers tend to follow her around a bit. If you’re K-Fed, sure. He’s out partying every single night but nobody cares, his attorney can still warn Britney that she has to prove her sobriety by doing the opposite of what he does. There are tons of guys out partying and none of them get the public condemnation that the women do, period. Jack Nicholson attacked a man’s car in a road rage incident (without having to endure anything like the same level of scrutiny as Spears) and nobody cared. Janet Jacson vs. andy guy on nay beach any day? If a guy was photographed with his dick out, people would laugh, but it wouldn’t be an occasion for “The evil slut! He did it on purpose! He flashed! No worse thing has ever been done in the history of mankind! Take his kids and send him to the mental hospital!” There’s no comp[arison, but having said that, saucymonkey that shameless ho did flash her vulva–what can we do to make her pay for this crime against humanity? Think of the kids being brought into the world therough filty lady bits, then having to SEE them, if she had enough decency to chop if off this couldn’t happen.
Whoops, sorry, I meant saucysaucy.
I’m not arguing that the bad girls want the negative publicity that they’re getting. I’m saying that the public’s fascination with these women – as mediated through the media – is ambivalent. Nobody likes Paris Hilton. The bad girl’s relationship with her public is based on taunting – You’re not like me! You can’t have me! – unlike the conventional Hollywood star whose relationship with the public is built on fantasy – I could fall for a fellow like you! You could be a woman like me! – So there’s a much bigger bang from the fall of a Paris Hilton than the fall of a Winona Ryder.
Mnemosyne- you’re right about Spears. She’s one in a long line of child stars whose lives were ruined by insane stage parents. It’s not fair to say that she chose her persona- but it’s still true that from the start she was presented as a bad girl.
Uh, when you go out without wearing panties to a popular club? How about when you see that there are lots of photogs right outside your car door and you make no compromise to shield your genital area? There are photos of Pink at the same club getting out in a similar fashion and you know what? We don’t see her vulva. Why? Because she’s wearing panties. She knew better.
Now, Britney can go out pantyless all she wants–again, not saying she shouldn’t go out–but I still don’t understand why I should feel her privacy has been violated when she knew good and damn well they were right outside her car. It’s not like the papparazzi jumped out and yelled “Gotcha” THEY WERE RIGHT BESIDE THE CAR, already snapping pictures. They didn’t even have to use a telephoto lens.
If Britney comes out of rehab and doesn’t do anything scandalous like, say: Driving with your baby in your lap, driving with your baby in the car seat facing the wrong way, your baby falling out of it’s high chair, fighting with your husband, divorcing your husband, going out with Paris Hilton almost every night for two weeks, checking into rehab, checking out of rehab, checking back into rehap, shaving your head, causing a scene outside your husband’s home, attacking a car, checking back into rehab…Then people will forget about her and leave her alone. But that’s the point then isn’t it?
What has Jude Law done that’s scandalous in the last six months? Because when he got caught having his affair, he was all over the place for weeks until it died down and no one cared. He even had a photog–using a telephoto lens–get rather unflattering pictures of his penis when he was using the pool at his parents house. People ripped into him for his “small” stature over that. And he’s been on the gossip blogs briefly over dating some singer like Ashlee Simpson (or someone like her, can’t remember) but what else has he done? If he were fucking nannies repeatedly, getting shit faced at clubs and being photographed repeatedly then we’d obsess over it. There were stories every single time Colin Farrell got drunk and fucked someone. I haven’t heard about him in a while so maybe he got sneakier with his shit.
We hear about how crazy/possessive Tom Cruise has *become* over his wife almost on a daily basis (if anything it’s weekly).
Pete Doherty, who’s a British musician, is always in the news for being busted for drug use (He dates Kate Moss). The gossip blogs who cover Britney Spears also cover him every time he’s in trouble and they attack him as viciously as they attack anybody else.
Keanu Reeves has been in the gossip news lately for possibly running over a photographer. If he doesn’t do anything else then no one will care about him.
Russell Crowe gets torn apart every time he throws a phone/gets into a fight. He hasn’t done any of that in a long time, and so when we see photos of him it’s usually with his kids.
Michael Jackson is in the news every time he so much as breathes.
Mel. Fucking. Gibson. What has he done lately? You damn well better believe if he falls off the horse again the gossip blogs will tear him a new asshole.
People hated Woody Allen for years. He hasn’t fucked any of his kids (as far as we know) so we don’t hear gossip about him.
I don’t know how many times I have to repeat it but I will because no one as far as I’ve read has addressed it but: I’m NOT saying they shouldn’t be going out, I’m saying that if what you really want to do is JUST have a good time and dance and drink, then you DON’T HAVE TO GO TO CLUBS WHERE YOU KNOW YOU WILL BE STALKED. For me, those people who go to those super popular “hot spots” go to be seen and seen they are.
People who bitch about papparazzi taking photos of them and then lunching at the Ivy are full of shit. You could lunch at Ammo or hell, Jones cafe in West Hollywood and you (for the most part) wouldn’t be bothered. But if you go to a club where papparazzi stalk it 24/7 and they know that’s where all the stars go then how can you possibly complain about the lack of privacy when unflattering photos of you are taken? Again, there is a difference between being photographed at Hyde and having someone shoot you at your home.
I can understand that no one here wants me to use the cause/effect relationship with this because it will bring out the rape apologists faster than saying the D*ke word, however at what point do we have to take responsibility for our own actions? If Britney had another meltdown at a popular club where she runs naked through the streets are the papparazzi supposed to be *kind* and not take photos?
there aren’t plenty of places you can go in LA for a private time if you’re Britney Spears. Photographers tend to follow her around a bit. If you’re K-Fed, sure. He’s out partying every single night but nobody cares
Jenna, I don’t agree with that but okay. This is coming from someone who’s going to admit they’re a gossip junkie (way too much free time on my hands) but go to any of the gossip websites and type in Kevin Federline in the search or archives. BEFORE Britney had her meltdown you will find a barrage of hatred toward him, covering every instance when he was out partying while his wife stayed home, calling him a bad father and a lazy gold digger. I believe his second name became “douche” especially when he released his album. When Britney filed for divorce from him everyone in the gossip community was ecstatic and happy for her and even more hatred came pouring in, giving him the nickname Fed-Ex. It wasn’t until Britney become publicly unhinged that the tide turned against her. I guess because he wanted custody, Kevin’s publicists/manager/whomever coached him on not partying publicly so much and you know what happened? He looked like the better parent for it. It was manipulation for the custody but sadly it worked as people in those communities became more sympathetic to him.
There are tons of guys out partying and none of them get the public condemnation that the women do, period. Jack Nicholson attacked a man’s car in a road rage incident (without having to endure anything like the same level of scrutiny as Spears) and nobody cared.
I already addressed this in my earlier post but Britney’s meltdown was in a long list of repeated behavior. It’s true that we see women differently for sexual behavior, which is unfair, but even still I think if male actors were doing this every day i.e, Pete Doherty, then it would be public every day.
Janet Jacson vs. andy guy on nay beach any day? If a guy was photographed with his dick out, people would laugh, but it wouldn’t be an occasion for “The evil slut! He did it on purpose! He flashed! No worse thing has ever been done in the history of mankind! Take his kids and send him to the mental hospital!”
I think it was the driving with the kid in her lap, the dropping from the high chair and the erratic behavior that had people saying she should have her kids taken from her, not just the flashing. It was an accumulation. No one believe Kevin Ferderline should have gotten the kids before she had her melt down. Then again, no one thought either of them were fit to be parents in the first place.
And Daniel Radcliff was in the news quite a bit when he signed on to do the play “Equus” where he’s fully frontal. Every time news about it came out there it was, especially when the unedited photos of him fully naked came, that was a big deal for a few days.
I’m actually leaving work in a few minutes, so if anyone replies and I don’t get back to them right away I will apologize.
tsk, tsk, zuzu! Don’t you know that TomCody love rape victims, and that some of his best friends are rape victims? I mean, it’s obvious that the women who are lucky enough to be his friend didn’t deserve to be raped because he can vouch for their character. But those dirty sluts that he doesn’t know, goin’ around with their prolapsed vaginas exposed to the world, they deserve everything that’s coming to them. Fortunately for skankazoids like Britney Spears, all they have to do in order to turn the tide of public opinion about their behavior isn’t to check into rehab, it’s to become close friends with TomCody! Because if he’s friends with you, then it’s obvious that you weren’t asking for it and were just a victim of circumstance.
Believe it or not, I think it was the Go-Gos. They had a pretty wild “Behind the Music” episode, and I think Jane Weidlin still does dominatrix stuff.
Wait, I’m sorry, her baby falling out of its high chair was a scandal?
If that’s the case, then every parent in America should be on the cover of the tabloids every day. But they’re not. Because the rest of us don’t have tabloid reporters paying top dollar for every story that someone is willing to tell.
You mean that we know about? Because that was the whole point of his scandal: that cop was the only one who was brave enough to actually arrest his drunk ass. All of the others let him slide, because he’s MEL GIBSON.
Guys covering up for other guys. We see it in everyday life all the time, and we see it in tabloid behavior, too. A guy has to do something really outrageous — like start ranting about how the Jews have caused all of the wars — before the tabloids will even bother to cover it. It’s a double standard. You know, the whole fucking thing we’ve been talking about this whole time?
Oh god, Britney Spears is…a bad mother! The worst possible thing that an American woman can be!
WRT the incident where she had her car backwards: I forget the exact statistic, but the majority of parents use their car seats incorrectly. That means not just drunken talentless celebrities. That means some of you, too.
And I’m pretty sure Britney was trying to get away from harrasing photographers when the picture w/out a car seat was snapped (not that that excuses, but it is a mitigating factor IMO).
The other day my daughter fell out of her swing. Last week, to my utter horror, the ate a bug. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve banged her head on something. These things happen.
And regarding male celebrities in gossip media, I’m about the furthest thing from a gossip junkie there can be. I picked up an issue of Star at work recently and was rather taken aback by its lack of articles and its creepy stalker photographs of scared-looking people running away. The only exposure I have to this stuff is through mainstream media.
And when it crosses over its usually ‘bad girls’ that cause the hysteria. Mel Gibson and Michael Richards are the only recent exceptions to that I can think of, and it was the racisism involved rather than any drunken irresponsibility involved that drew attention in those cases I think.
I, too, hate that bigot Perez Hilton. Why is it when women and girls are the target of ruthless hate, somehow one has to apologize for not being in on the joke? My God, it’s bigotry (I despise that trivialization, “disrespect”). Gender or femaleness is the determining factor, so those so-called “vulgar” words are, in fact, slurs. Yes, bitch, whore, slut, skank, and all the others passing off as honestly brutal ways of condemning (female) misbehavior–the epitome of moral hysteria. No wonder we live in a society where “bitch” (the definition is female dog) is now the ultimate, generic insult. The only reason why Paris Hilton is constatly kept in the papers is so all of society can engage in the verbal equivalent of stoning. I don’t care if this spoiled brat sleeps with hordes of men (or women) in front of a stadium full of people, no one should be called slurs, b/c it attacks all females. Yet, no one seems to give a shit.
Damn it!
Do vaginas have some sort of potential to be used as a deadly weapon I’m unaware of? The only reason I’d be concerned/interested if a celebrity’s penis was showing would be the possibility that someone might feel physically threatened. I can only assume that the hysterical reaction to a glimpse of Britney’s vulva is that same response, fear. Otherwise, much as I’d like to revive the stocks and public lashings, and as serious an offense as failure to wear underwear is, I’m more concerned about the descecrating the Sabbath with the card playing and the swaying to music.
TC, you’re actually undermining your own case. Yes, guys like Russell Crowe and Woddy Allen receive a bit of (generally fairly nonjudgemental) media attention when they do something really noteworthy like say committing or being accused of CRIMES like assault or child abuse. But that’s nothing like what these women receive for the crimes of going commando or whatever stupid thing it is. And I just googled the high chair thing, and guess what, it was apparently a child care worker who accidentally dropped the baby. Of course, that’s all part of her pattern of erratic behavior, because she had a responsibility to hire someone who could never have an accident. The child’s father is lucky not to have any similar responsibility. (Yeah, yeah, he got a little press flack for being not having ajob and living off his wife, which is in itself pretty sexist imo, but nothing like this for being the party guy of Las Vegas).
You know, I’ve never met Britney Spears, but that doesn’t mean I don’t know her. I know she’s a bad woman and a bad mother because I read about it in Star. I’m a wonderful person, and I could survive 24 hour scrutiny and having every single thing I do dissected and condemned and still come out looking great. She must be crazy, she’s gotten a hair cut! And sexist double standards don’t bother me at all, because I could totally pass them, and anyone who can’t is EEEVVVILLL and bringing it all on herself. Just be a good girl and represent your gender in an acceptable manner and they’ll leave you alone. Good luck with that. (And she partied with Paris Hilton for two weeks!)
Vanessa, according to the article Jill referenced, Britney’s car seat was acceptable in CA but a violation of non binding federal guidelines (OMG, she *totally* violated non binding federal guidelines! How crazy can you get?)
About K-Fed, as was pointed out above, K-Fed was one of the most hated men in America for a while. He had so much natural heat he appeared on WWE (wrasslin’) as a heel manager. (AKA bad guy) He didn’t even do anything to act like a heel, he showed up and got huge boos.
Video evidence: (warning, you will lose IQ points watching these)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRZhmAaQGLw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kv0RJ-Fd2AM
Did you guys miss the superbowl commercial where K-Fed was working at KFC? His poorly selling tour also got a ton of bad press. Everyone hated him because he was a leech and a bum ruining Britney’s good name.
People don’t hate him as much anymore because he has demonstrated some sense of humor about his situation and also Britney did plenty to tarnish her name on her own. Now he’s just another bad rapper.
—
The article at pop matters is purely argument by anecdote and and is full of bad analogies. Tommy Lee vs. Britney? Why not Michael Jackson dangling his baby over the railing? Or Steve “Croc Hunter” Irwin bringing his kid near a croc? Both of those were major major stories.
Argument by anecdote is usually poor, especially when there is a false equivalency being suggested.
There are a lot of factors at work – previous behavior, the magnitude of the star, the specifics of the incident. Tommy Lee doesn’t get a lot of press over anything because Tommy Lee is just not that famous compared to Britney.
Tom Cruise got a lot more press than female scientologists. Kirstie Alley said:
“I don’t like psychiatry. I don’t believe it works. I believe psychiatrists are neurotic or psychotic, for the most part.”
Nobody cared. Tom Cruise said something similar and got reamed? Why? Because Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise and Kirstie Alley is Kirstie Alley, and because Tom Cruise was up to a lot of wacky shit at the time. Tom Cruise is a huge movie star and Britney is a huge pop star, of course they get more attention. it isn’t reverse sexism that South Park did an episode on how batshit insane Tom Cruise is but not how batshit insane Kirstie Alley is.
A lot of people love to watch a good fall from grace. The bigger the star the bigger the fall. Selective quotations about people who are really not very similar aren’t very convincing.
—
Perez Hilton is absolutely horrible, by the way. If you want to make a compelling case for sexism in media you should start there, in which case I would agree 100%. You are talking about a guy who will use MS Paint to pencil in “fat whore” on a picture of someone and who appears obsessed with debasing women in general.
You could probably go as far as to argue that much of the media negative portrayal of some women is attributable directly to Perez Hilton as national media tends to look at his blog for scoops.
what the hell– are you kidding? He’s been in the news for 1. growing up and getting sexy & naked, 2. becoming a Serious Actor in a Serious Role, and 3. shedding the Harry Potter baggage.
Share with me those hundreds of news stories and gossip sites where he’s been called, in all seriousness, a slut, a “bad” man, and a trashy whore who isn’t going to be taken seriously anymore because he can’t keep it covered up and his knees crossed. Show me anything like that.
This is exactly what everyone’s talking about. Exactly. Dan Radcliffe is Exhibit A in the double standards museum.
I’ve seen plenty of articles about how grown women feel naughty for finding him hot now. I’ve seen fuck-all about how he should feel naughty for taking it off for pay.
With regards to K-Fed, an isolated and bizarre persona, somehow proving the strong and obvious pattern of society’s love of bashing women (and girls) wrong: imagine if he were a woman. That level of hate he received would’ve been child’s play.
Come on! The worst you can call a man (w/o feminizing him, of course) falls along the line of jerk, asshole, creep, etc. no matter what he does and even then none of those words are slurs and society doesn’t exactly condemn male behavior that is aggressive or offensive (Think: George Bush, Osama bin Laden, a child rapist, etc.). If you’re female, any evil can be projected onto you for no other reason than you fucked up and decided to be born a girl (Who hasn’t been directly called a slur?).
That’s right, bitches, you fucked up before you were even born! Now, you must suffer the consequences. Hell, India and China are just slaughtering the little infidels as soon as they register female on the sonogram. Yay, pre-emptive femicide!
But I’m sure, none of this affects how we view the most prominent members of the female species. No, never.
Shit, I messed up with my thought pattern and included Bush, bin Laden, a child rapist in the wrong part of the sentence (the list should’ve been inserted earlier before stating that male behavior that is bad is rarely punished). I meant to say those men would never be called anything worse than asshole, jacksass, creep, no matter how evil they might be. I totally fucked up, sorry.
Why are people comparing Radcliffe and Britney Spears?
They are totally different people in totally different situations. Radcliffe is exposing himself in a serious work of art, has some appreciable talent and is generally a well-adjusted person who is moderately well-known.
Britney is exposing herself at a club apparently following in the footsteps of her buddies who did the same thing to get press attention, has no talent, is generally crazy (watch “Chaotic” sometime if you don’t believe that) and is super-famous.
Lots of semi-famous people get naked, men and women, and most of them are not treated anything like Britney Spears.
That girl from the Princess Diaries has been naked in movies, that wasn’t a big scandal. (Ann(e?) Hathaway) If you want to compare Radcliffe to somebody that is a more apt comparison than Britney Spears.
Britney Spears is both super famous and super fucked up. (Again, watch Chaotic if you can bear it) That’s why she gets the press she does. Radcliffe is half as famous and a tenth as crazy.
Or at least, he didn’t create his own TV show just to document how crazy he was. When you do that you sort of invite attention.
It isn’t a double standard when the people and situations are dissimilar.
You know what is interesting about Britney, Anna Nicole Smith and Whitney Houston? They all had TV shows based on how fucked up they were.
Meanwhile, if these female celebrities *did* wear panties, and they happened to show under their fashion-dictated skimpy dresses made of flimsy cellulite-showing materials, they would be chastized for having *gasp!* a panty line!!
Back On Topic: I think having a 12 yr old modeling womens fashions is gross. Then again, the only thing I interact with regarding the fashion industry is my one-hr-a-week watching of America’s Next Top Model. I read no magazines, I watch no other TV, I never go to malls.
Tom Cruise is a much bigger star than Kirstie Alley, who does Jenny Craig commercials nowadays. What she gets in the tabs for is getting fat, not being nuts.
Plus, did you miss the whole Oprah couch thing and the part where he attacked Brooke Shields for taking meds to control her severe post-partum depression?
Because some people are desperate to prove that men do too get treated just as badly as women in the tabloids, so they grasp at straws like Radcliffe appearing in a classic play as “proof.”
zuzu are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? What you wrote is exactly my point.
Tom Cruise has a history of crazy behavior and is super famous. That is why he gets press.
Britney has a history of crazy behavior and is super famous. That is why she gets press.
Michael Jackson – ditto.
Jude Law – not so much. He isn’t nearly as famous or as crazy.
The people mentioning Radcliffe were putting him up as evidence of a double standard but Radcliffe is not as crazy or as famous as Britney or Tom Cruise.
Tom Cody, do you really think Kevin Federline’s advisors told him to cut back on public partying? If they did, he didn’t take their advice, if you’ve got friends in Vegas ask them how often they heard he showed up here or there at the same time Britney Spears was being raked over the coals for partying. I guess it’s fair to say that he cut back on “public” partying in the sense that even though he was out in public none of the tabloids cared enough to print his picture, but why would they? A shot of Britney walking down the street in daylight wearing a coat means she’s out of control and a horrible neglectful mother, a shot of Kevin passed out doesn’t mean anything about him as a father, he has no responsibility for the kids anyway, why shouldn’t he party all night, his KFC ad made him cool and he can do whatever he wants? To be fair, Federline did get press while partying, no he wasn’t being condemned for partying, but it was approvingly reported that while he was out he was publicly dissing his ex for being evil and a nutcase, which is obviously true because she was going out a lot. So yeah.
subgrrl, I know! It would either be pantylines or they’re too fat to wear that or mommies shouldn’t wear that, it’s always something, you can’t win.
Random Observer 3, see Tommy Lee, Michael Jackson (who as you point out is superfamous) and Steve Irwin were cases where children actually were being deliberately endangered. Britney Spears was accused of being an unfit mother in danger of losing custody because somebody stuck a camera up her skirt and found she wasn’t wearing underwear. That’s why it’s called a double standard, when a guy has to massacre 45 people to get as much bad press as a woman sipping a martini.
Hmphk. This sorta reminds me of the fuss one of my classmates made because she would wear sexy clothing and then the physics guys would hit on her. The fact that all the rest of us of the feminine persuasion went around in standard “physics grad slob” never seemed to cross her mind.
Of course, this was a woman who would wear open-toed sandals in December with 4 inches of snow outside and then complain her feet were cold.
There’s some levels of nitwit you can’t get around.
OMG, I know. Any woman who thinks she should be able to wear anything other than potato sack is obviously an idiot.
Comments on this entry are closed.