Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Reproductive Justice and Gender

Even as Celebrities, Women Face a Double Standard

By Vanessa Richmond, The Tyee. Posted July 5, 2008.


There was little media introspection about Heath Ledger's overdose, while Amy Winehouse receives daily scrutiny for her drug habits. What gives?
Advertisement

The tabloids paint Britney Spears' as a neglectful, deranged, drug-addicted mother who frequently neglects and even endangers her children, and whose partying ways are responsible for her demise. The video and images of Amy Winehouse smoking crack cocaine have been widely circulated, along with a flurry of recent articles alleging that her frequent drug use is to blame for the decline of her health -- including emphysema and her stark emaciation.

But a video of Heath Ledger hanging out at a drug-fueled party before his death didn't make it to air on Entertainment Tonight, nor appear elsewhere. New York coroners ruled that Ledger's recent death was due to an accidental overdose of prescription medication, with few media outlets even casting other aspersions. And when Owen Wilson was hospitalized last year after an apparent suicide attempt, not only did his plight inspire only one cover story in US Weekly, but news coverage was almost entirely sympathetic and respectful, often citing psychiatrists' explanations of the intricacies of mental illness and depression.

Sure, plenty of male stars get excoriated by the media -- Mel Gibson to name one. But overwhelmingly, as a recent New York Times article alleges, "Men who fall from grace are treated with gravity and distance, while women in similar circumstances are objects of derision, titillation and black comedy."

Britney's tears and cautionary tales

Last week a conference called Going Cheap? Female celebrity in the tabloid, reality and scandal genres, held at the University of East Anglia in the U.K., attempted to get to the bottom of this paradox and "our" fascination with self-destructive female celebrites. Papers included Britney's tears: The abject female celebrity in post-emotional society and Hooker, victim and/or doormat: Lindsay Lohan and the culture of celebrity notoriety, among others.

Unsurprisingly, some celebrity journalists disagreed with the symposium's premise, including Gordon Smart, who edits The Sun. He told the BBC that the preponderance of female stars is purely coincidence. "At the moment there just happens to be cluster of female celebrities that are going through difficult times."

But Diane Negra, a professor of film and television studies at the host university, said the coverage of women is definitely more judgmental than the coverage of men. And that while a media story about a drug-addicted man is likely to focus on or even celebrate his expected return (as with Robert Downey Jr.'s recent Iron Man performance) coverage of female celebs is more likely to focus on their (self-inflicted) demise and act as "cautionary tales."

"We seem to have a lot more fixed ideas about what women's lives should be like than we do of men," she said.

Women dare not have it all

Why? "When we use female celebrities this way, we see them failing and struggling, they serve as proof that for women the work-life balance is impossible. Can you have it all? The answer these stories give again and again is 'absolutely not.'"

In the recent New York Times piece, several tabloid editors agreed they handle female celebrities differently but said the reason is due to readership, not sexism. US Weekly's readership is 70 per cent female, and People's is over 90 per cent.

Janice Min, the editor-in-chief of US Weekly, said that putting a solo man on the cover is "cover death. Women don't want to read about men unless it's through another woman: a marriage, a baby, a breakup."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: celebrity, brittany spears, amy winehouse

Tyee contributing editor Vanessa Richmond writes the Schlock and Awe column about popular culture and the media.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
I didnt read this article
Posted by: ArtemInox on Jul 5, 2008 12:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would I deliberately subject myself to any more celebrity bullshit? At any given time, I have some idea of celebrity news, and I don't even watch TV or read the paper or any magazines at all......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I didnt read this article Posted by: oregonox
» RE: I didnt read this article Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I didnt read this article Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I didnt read this article Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: I didnt read this article Posted by: ArtemInox
Well stated, but ...
Posted by: gadfly66 on Jul 5, 2008 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think anyone reading this article will be shocked at the notion that males and females are held to different standards in this world. Often highly divergent ones, at that. So, to large degree, the author is simply stating the painfully obvious. The more compelling idea here is: just what explains this double-standard? It reminds me a bit of the different standards liberals are held to in contrast with conservative politicians. Liberal pols are expected to be highly mature and to never get down in the mud while conservative politicians (and pundits) can get away with damn near anything shy of picking up guys in airport bathroom stalls or trawling for underage gals on the internet.

Furthermore, women are often held to a different standard for pretty good reason: males and females expect more maturity from females as they are the ones who get pregnant and are far more likely to raise the children (while men continue to go out 'hunting and gathering' various available, unmarried hotties to spread that DNA far and wide). If fathers get wasted and do lots of drugs it *may* affect the unborn child; if mama does these things it will *definitely* affect the unborn child. There are likely plenty of bad celebrity dads out there but I haven't yet noticed any of 'em driving around in Hollywood with tiny babies sitting on their laps sans seatbelt. I'll take a second look next time I'm in the checkout line at Dominick's.

As for Amy Winehouse, well, she's a fine talent and I hope she makes it to thirty, lungs intact. But when you are a newly-minted superstar, routinely spotted in public incoherently stumbling about and half delirious from your recent crack or meth score, well, you're going to attract mosquito-like paparazzi by the dozens. And need I mention that it hardly helps your credibility when your introduction to the pop charts involves you defiantly declaring, "They tried to get me to go to rehab ... I said no, no, no!' Ledger and many other male celebs was/are hardly saints; then again, they weren't exactly begging for attention either while they shot up on a daily basis. Context is everything here, folks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well stated, but ... Posted by: celia crone
Um...
Posted by: Zenobia on Jul 5, 2008 1:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about the double standards around how women are treated in physics departments, in IT, or in engineering school?

How about the double standards around women in media getting jobs for how much skin they are willing to bear to pander to a male director's warped fantasies, while men get media jobs for their actual abilities?

How about the double standards that still exist around who is more often expected to scale back her career and stay home with the kids?

I could go on for pages, but you get the point.

Why this tabloid junk when there are SO many more pressing double standards that really need to be addressed and remedied? This article is quite depressing in that it makes me feel like young people don't even want to look at those issues, let alone tackle them. They'd rather run around shrieking about how "empowered" (cough cough cough) they feel wearing shoes that inhibit their movement and make them walk like ducks. They'd rather giggle about how "liberated" they are when they get their pubic hair ripped out.

Eegas. Wake me up when this generation is over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Um... Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Um... Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Um... Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Um... Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Um...one last thing Posted by: bizeeb
» RE: Um...one last thing Posted by: daniel347x
» RE: Um... Posted by: cmaciain
» RE: Um... Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Um...Sorry Dan but Posted by: non utopian
» RE: Um...Sorry Dan but Posted by: daniel347x
It's the "air we breathe"
Posted by: talkville on Jul 5, 2008 2:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From left to right and from top to bottom, as long as 'objectivity' denies the Body, the senses and experiencing, we'll have a 'double-standard'. As long as the 'soul', the 'self' or the 'mind' are independent of the Body, we'll have a 'double-standard'. Celebrity, 'nobody', rich, poor, no matter. It's in the air we breathe and in the ways we do our thinking, and our living.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Double standards
Posted by: John Annis on Jul 5, 2008 3:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women - or at least these women - do want it all ways, and that's the up and down of it.

When was the last time you saw a photo of a male 'celebrity' emerging from a car deliberately showing shaven pubes?

If it looks like a skank, walks like a skank and behaves like a skank .....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Double standards Posted by: olderworker
» RE: Double standards Posted by: dumdumboy
» RE: Double standards Posted by: thealltheone
You answered your own questions
Posted by: rosweed on Jul 5, 2008 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a gender issue only in that women bring this on themselves. I ride the subway every day and I see what people are reading. By far, women read more of these celebrity magazines than men. It's about how women treat and view each other. Straight men, for the most part, don't care about this stuff. Women, again for the most part, seem to revel in that. If you can find a way to blame men for it, go ahead. While you're at it, find a way to blame men for the torture you put yourselves through wearing those nasty, stylish shoes. Ask a man if he cares what you have on your feet. Women dress for women. Men wouldn't blink if you had shoe boxes on your feet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In the case for Winehouse
Posted by: weathered on Jul 5, 2008 4:15 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
she has at her core such little talent, her bold, obnoxious and arrogant publicist feels this is the one consistent campaign that will afford this defective soul PR - just ask her greedy Father?

Judy Garland's handlers went to great lengths to protect her substance abuse from the press - she having more talent in her little toe then Amy could muster in a flawed lifetime.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: In the case for Winehouse Posted by: weathered
» RE: In the case for Winehouse Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: In the case for Winehouse Posted by: weathered
I'm tired of women
Posted by: teel on Jul 5, 2008 4:52 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm tired of women complaining about this now, playing the gender card in every single aspect of their existance.

Let me explain something to you ladies. YOU are the reason for this unhealthy focus on celebrity women. It's YOU that buy the magazines depicting saggy bosoms, celulite thighs and pouty botox lips. It's YOU that destroy your own gender by backstabbing each other, by pushing yourselves to beat each other reaching for the retarded ideals that you've set up for yourselves.

Men DO NOT care about these things, we do not revel and gloat at famous bodies, we DO NOT purchase these timewasting magazines. You're doing it to yourselves and I say good luck with it all. I'm fed up reading about teenage girls and how hard life is, how you have to be the best and look the best and have to own the "right" products. It's a bullshit hyped up existance that you women created for yourselves. You all have a brain in your skull, correct? So excercise your freedom of choice and take charge of your own life for !"#ยค sake. Every person on this planet can not be a movie star or model, that's fact, and if you don't become one life does not end there.

Amy Winehouse can not be compared Heath Ledger, if you want someone to compare her with how about Pete Doherty. There's a guy who's just as useless as she is, drugheads the two of them.

If women stopped buying the media surrounding celebreties then this media would die. If nobody wants to see it, nobody wants to hear about it then guess what? It goes away. Women have a need to gloat, lie, whisper in corners and bring other women down. You're creating and maintaining the whole thing. Men do NOT CARE. So why on earth should it be surprising if men get off easier, women don't care about men, there's no satisfaction in bringing a man down because he was never the same threat to begin with. How does it affect your self-esteem to see hunky socialite men do well for themselves? Not at all. So men get off easier. It's a business aimed at women, you're the target audience and it feeds on these needs you for some reason have to push others women down so that you may feel better about yourselves.

Call me an insensitive chauvanist caveman if it makes you feel any better, I really do not care.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm tired of women Posted by: wal55
Surveillance Society
Posted by: grolaw on Jul 5, 2008 5:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great Britain is the penultimate Surveillance Society with CCTV everywhere and a long history of tabloid journalism. Seems to me that I remember something about Prince Charles' cell phone conversation with his mistress becoming a big thing some time ago.

Amy Winehouse is crude, vulgar, and appears to care little or nothing about her physical appearance. In simple terms: she is a serious junkie who will die if she doesn't deal with her substance abuse problems.

It was Robin Williams who said that a Coke addiction was God's way of telling you that you made too damn much money. With regards to the Winehouse case - the public attention may well be the only thing that will save her. If the CCTV monitors see her acting impaired in public and have her picture on the cover of the latest tabloid, perhaps they will send an ambulance to her assistance faster than they might for the average junkie?

I think that the Winehouse exception proves the rule - men are never photographed sunbathing - nude or otherwise. Women deserve their privacy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Call It A Draw
Posted by: desidid on Jul 5, 2008 5:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
She didn't receive much scrutiny for her racist ditty either. Yeah I guess I'm supposed to feel some solidarity with her because we each have a vagina. Think again she is the British version of trailer trash

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A patriarchal system
Posted by: genderless on Jul 5, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as our biased moral code and standards are derived from this thing called God and the misogynist cocaine addict biased Freud who is held on a pedestal as the God of psychology and as long as society is founded by the perceptions of male founded philosophies to allocate gender roles in society this would be the status quo. In addition as long as scientific research holds women body to be the only factor responsible in rearing a healthy baby without any thorough scientific research done on the life of sperm in the male body and what's their life styles implications on the quality and health of sperms this will always be the case.

As far as women's atitude and resentments towards each other or towards the other women in society who were able to free themselves from the patriarchal tradition set by society (not refering to the drugged celebrities)refering to career women who do not settle for the role of having a family or raising children or revolve their lives around a man to be considered weird, evil or sluts or whatever you want to call them this will be the outcome and is another culprit. Finally, the day that women stand together to confront these questions, these issues, themselves and the system maybe then and only then we will see a change towards a better balanced society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

one last factor / Galmorizing drugs
Posted by: genderless on Jul 5, 2008 6:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When society and the media stop Glamorizing Art through the lenses of drug addicts and celebrates their dysfunctional misery then we can have a sound society. There are so many artists who don't use drugs and have much more talent and things to say for society but they are not in the spot light.

Maybe we all have to question that and demand from Artists pure performances as we demand from Athletes to refrain from the use of anabolic steroids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

then why are you commenting?
Posted by: LeslieGem on Jul 5, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I don't read all the articles on Alternet either -- just relax and read what you want to read and let the rest of us do the same.

Thank you!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

uh...
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Jul 5, 2008 7:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There was little media introspection about Heath Ledger's overdose, while Amy Winehouse receives daily scrutiny for her drug habits. What gives?"

Could be the HUGE difference between accidentally overdosing on prescription medications that were actually prescribed and constantly getting messed up beyond all recognition on every illegal drug under the sun while singing songs like Rehab.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who are these people, and why are they so important to the author?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 5, 2008 7:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are they role models, philanthropists, or inventors?

No, I suppose not. I get the vague notion that they're "stars" from the article. My suggestion to the author who is so distressed at the attention given to such stars:

look away.

By the way, ignoring idiocy is gender neutral!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Cult of Personalities
Posted by: JackonFire on Jul 5, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm waiting for someone to point out the sorry excuses for journalists (male and female) and the crap that passes for journalism. Get a life or a real job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I hate it, but I'm a sexist.
Posted by: Vinkenoog on Jul 5, 2008 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe because I expect MORE from women. We work full-time, go to school, raise kids, we're excellent multi-taskers and can generally run circles around most men in getting things done throughout the day. (See? Sexist...I warned you.)
BUT - speaking in horribly broad generalizations cultivated from 40 years of experience...we are utter suckers for advertising and are the main force behind our obscenely consumerist American culture, we pay far too much attention to physical appearance and we don't pay enough attention to politics even though it affects our CHILDREN'S future. It makes me sick how often I ask a woman about her political views and she either doesn't have any or parrots that of her husband. It was a 25 year-old WOMAN who asked me a couple weeks ago (with a completely straight face) if we'd ever had a female vice-president before.
Sure men read these stupid magazines too but women drive the content. If we want to be treated fairly we need to start raising our girls to be well-informed, critically-thinking citizens first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lots of GUYS care about this . . . ?
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on Jul 5, 2008 9:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lots of men (other than the metrosexual wannabe feminism created during those "single parent family" times) give a rats ass about this tabloid tripe? Sure. Right! YO!

But it's men's fault that tabloid (who the hell is Amy Slimehouse or whatever [I forgot the other name]) crap like this features crap like this? Sure. Right! YO!

The mind of the female - wonderful, isn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I'd $ay they care... Posted by: morticia
» RE: I'd $ay they care... Posted by: Walks-in-Storms
Mostly, AlterNet has a cultural, not political audience.
Posted by: daniel347x on Jul 5, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is receiving (so far) 7 times more comments than the article about populism from the 1880's-1890's.

The waves of radicalism in the 1880's, 1920's, and 1960's are immensely important to understand as impetus for possibilities for radical social and political change in the U.S. today, and directly impact women's lives far more than issues surrounding the treatment of celebrity women in the media.

This article is about a cultural issue with political underpinnings. The article about populism in the 1880's is about a political issue with cultural underpinnings.

However, many more people are posting on this article (and I assume that means many more people are reading it) than the article on populism.

It's my opinion that this is one of a great many examples that AlterNet has an audience that cares far more about cultural issues than political issues. I think this is a sign of the reactionary times we live in.

We have a lot of work to do as radicals, and we'd be better served if we paid attention to politics in balance with culture. Sometimes I feel very dejected that articles such as this receive so much more attention than political articles. We can't leave politics to those entrenched in power while we spend an undo amount of our time talking about how female celebrities are treated in the media. To the extent it is women who spend such an undo amount of time (is this true?) I think that is a sign of the oppression of women in our culture - not a sign of cultural emancipation.

Dan Nissenbaum

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bad girl!
Posted by: luzmejor on Jul 5, 2008 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference between the press given this star and the male star is that She didn't have the decency to die, like he did.

American idol worshippers do so love a tragedy!
They can pull out their hankies and pretend to care about more than their own social image.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bad girl! Posted by: thealltheone
» RE: bad girl! Posted by: luzmejor
Tired of 'em or not, cultural issues need to be addressed
Posted by: realmuzik on Jul 5, 2008 2:43 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They go hand-in-hand with politics more than you think.

Something is truly wrong with a society where celebrity news is more important than community, national, and international news that affects real lives. It's been a mission of the Bush Administration for the last eight years to distract the citizenry away from the issues that matter most to them so that they can focus on their international agenda "undisturbed." What could be possibly such a distraction? Corporate-funded/controlled celebrity tabloid news, of course!

For the record ... I know of too many men who fantasize "committing crimes" with/against the likes of Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, and any other fake-booby, talentless pop-tarts experiencing their "15 minutes" of "fame" this very second. Remember when Lohan had naked pictures taken for New York magazine ahwile back?? Their servers crashed at least once and it wasn't women running like crazy searching them out. It was the boys who have computer mice glued to their hands 24/7 while their TVs are on CNN or "Feaux News" 24/7 simultaneously.

There is an invaluable resource for the concerned wondering what they can do about this. It addresses the issues of the multi-cultural, marginalized, people of color as well as the "elites." I know I can never recommend this resource enough. But it is, I believe, one of many answers to the take-charge and fight back solutions that are needed now more than ever. We must take our culture back so that we as a citizenry can focus on the real issues that matter more to us than Amy Winehouse's drug habits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no shit?
Posted by: Joe on Jul 5, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
males and females are held to different standards?? i never noticed that. unfortunately for alternet types where those standards benefit women and do the opposite for men not a word is spoken.

what a fair article. cherry pick examples that fit your argument and then make a broad generalization which fits your bias. boy im loving this new media "truth". stop whining alternet. anyone ever tell you the world isn't perfect - the world isn't nickelodeon or the disney channel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tired of hearing white women complain
Posted by: nfamous on Jul 6, 2008 7:05 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm tired of hearing white women complain about everything. Attractive white women do exactly what they want every day all day. They make it through life on their looks and looks alone. Less attractive white women get all upset about how they see more attractive women behaving and claim it is men's fault. The project the jealousy they feel for attractive women onto men as a whole.

Feminism has become misandry. White women have it made. They reap the benefits of all these laws against men plus the generational benefit of accumulation of wealth from slavery. If anyone is persecuted it is black women who have a completely different struggle from white women. White women have benefited from welfare, food stamps and affirmative action more than any other race. Blacks always get the "handout" and "welfare queen" label but never the benefit. All men realize that some sexism still exists but white women are not the ones we need to be focusing our attention on.

This anti-male culture has been created by the elite using the media and their band of highly paid psy-op specialists. Their goal is to decrease the population by dividing men and women. The way you do that is by turning men into women and women into men. Americans are so blind we can never see the real purpose behind anything. Men are women are not different. Men and women used to be socialized differently but now women are being socialized to behave exactly like men and depopulation is the goal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I call you, my dear....
Posted by: Sinibaldi on Jul 6, 2008 7:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like a magical
fear, in my heart,
there's always
a footprint that
now disappears in
the light of a pathway,
and there my
desire gives an
attention to some
beautiful birds.

Francesco Sinibaldi

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This column cheapens real gender disparity
Posted by: scootmandubious on Jul 6, 2008 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seriously, were you really trying to compare the behavior of the obviously self-destructive Amy Winehouse with the tragedy of Heath Ledger's death?

I think Winehouse is an amazing talent, but I am somebody who has met and interviewed many celebrities and I can never understand where some of them become so narcissistic that they think that somehow one's celebrity is an excuse for grotesque public behavior. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of those I have encountered are relatively grounded and are appreciative of the fame they have gotten.

Whatever you think of Ledger, he did not conduct his public life in anywhere near the same manner as Winehouse has. After his death some videos surfaced. What, you think in a You Tube age, this can't happen to virtually anyone?

Ledger was a private person who didn't celebrate his addictions. Using him in your piece to prove a faux point is disgusting.

And, as I wrote in the subject, your doing so cheapens real issues of gender inequality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

really??
Posted by: cbishopp on Jul 6, 2008 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is true that women are held to different standards in many walks of life but to place the battle in this arena is ridiculous.
What about Kate Moss and her being filmed doing drugs at a club. I think her career only prospered as a result of her public humiliation and the story only floated around as long as her actions supported it. In other words, the behavior of the star in question (male or female) is what makes the cheap tabloid news. How many times does Amy Whinehouse sling punches drunkenly on the street or how often does Britney Spears do something insane like flash a camera man or shave her head.
The author of this article should be embarrassed that the very real thoughtful subject of sexual inequality is applied to some of the most shallow self serving asses our culture has to offer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

abuse is not thinking
Posted by: John Orford on Jul 8, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reading the vulgar abuse, bigotry and semi-literacy of some of these comments makes me think AlterNet is going downhill.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: abuse is not thinking Posted by: pomes