Via Ezra, a feminist defense of Paris Hilton.
First, the Barbie Doll thing. At twenty-five, Paris is relatively young. She is surrounded by looks obsessed, intensely critical people and lives in constant public scrutiny. Much as I have problems with the bullshit Barbie Doll ideal, here again I have a larger problem:
The problem of anyone, really, telling women How They Should Dress.Ten years ago, I may have done a “Take Back the Night!” march in platform heels, full makeup and crazy-long Mariah Carey hair circa 1990. Today, I would do the same march sans heels, but with eyeliner. Ten years ago, being rejected by more “serious” women at a TBTN march due to my overly girly appearance would have broken my heart. Today, it would piss me off — and break my heart.
I’m guessing most women feel some pressure, to varying degrees, regarding how we should or should not dress. Some of us may eschew shaving our legs, others may abhor makeup, and others may have big problems with cleavage. Some of us may feel more comfortable with our beloved eyeliner, take pride in ample cleavage, and love heels.
We may or may not cast off some of these “trappings of the patriarchy” or “fun girly stuff,” depending as we view these — but this is a personal journey each woman must make for herself. For any of us feminists to waggle our fingers and tsk tsk at these mislead, girly-girls reeks again a bit too much of “Naughty Girl, Bad Girl!” for my liking. Perhaps even a teeny bit like “Whore or Slut!”
(…)
Moreover, I will not slap the blame on the female celebs who choose this route, although I admit it would be nice to see more of them say no to this pressure.
I put the blame on the bullshit society that not only accepts and encourages this, but basically mandates this behavior for female celebs. The Jodie Fosters of Hollywood – women who get tons of respect for their acting alone – are few and far between. Think about it.
In closing on the Top Five, I like Paris mostly because she makes no apologies for herself. No matter how much the media and the public demand she change her ways, ‘fess up, apologize and keep her damn legs crossed, she keeps right on smiling for the camera and doing her thing. You gotta give her some credit for possessing a certain kind of Fuck You here – and I respect that in any woman.
For a long time, I’ve found Paris bashing kind of tedious, in a similiar way that I find Courtney Love and Christina Aguilera bashing pretty tedious. I’ve thus far been unable to express exactly why I find it so tedious. But I think there’s something about the fact that for whatever foibles these celebrities have, those doing the criticizing seem far more offensive to me, and petty too.
77 Responses to “Defending Paris”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Paris Hilton seems much happier than most of us. She is an example of someone who does what she wants and she is very successful. Maybe more people should see her as a role model.
Yeah, she’s fucking fantastic.
http://us.video.aol.com/video.index.adp?mode=1&pmmsid=1647344
bryce,
It’s much easier to be happy and to do what you want and be successful when you’ve never had to want for anything, when you’ve got your parents’ millions supporting you should you mess up…..hmmm, kinda like Mary Cheney.
I just don’t understand how Paris Hilton got to be so huge. I mean, really, she’s someone with no discernable skills and talent who is famous for being famous.
I bash Paris Hilton not for her appearance. That’s petty and small.
I bash Paris Hilton for one reason and one reason alone. She’s a celebrity because she is very very rich. Ungodly rich. And what precisely did Paris Hilton do to deserve being so rich? She was born into the right family. At least Love and Aguilera can justify media attention by having a talent. Hilton’s just has a lot of money coming her way.
And that’s… it. I’d look at magazines when she became ‘famous’. And think, “what has she actually done?” And I’d look at her and her sister, and say “I’ve never seen these people before in my life.” The feminist defense is all well and good, but I sincerely doubt Paris Hilton cares about feminism, because she’s rich.
In the end, that Fuck You demeanor is because when Mother and Father Hilton kick off, she and her sister will be able to buy and sell us lesser folk like cattle. Nothing more.
It’s tedious and petty, but so’s pretty much the whole cult of celebrity following.
The difference between Paris Hilton and Aguilera or Love is that the latter two actually built something out of innate talents, while Paris was born a multi-billionaire and wandered into celebrity via a bootleg porn video. With that establishing her public persona, she ran with it and went from unknown billionaire to famous billionaire. She seems happier than most of us? Hell, most of us would be a lot happier if we’d gotten virtually unlimited personal spending power and endless free time by accident of birth.
I’m (slightly) sympathetic to at least the idea of the ambitious rich kid who struggles to ever emerge from their parents’ shadow…but that certainly isn’t the problem Paris had.
What’s there to be “proud of” in having big cleavage?
Either you were born with it, in which case you had nothing to do with it, and it’s like being proud of being tall or having black hair - or you paid someone to cut you open and stick plastic in you so that you would conform to late 20th century US standards of female beauty, which means you have a) more money than brains or b) regard for your health and physical comfort as well as caring more about men’s superficial opinions of you than your health and comfort.
Nope, not impressed with this from a feminist standpoint.
And yes, the reason that Paris Hilton gets up people’s noses is her aristocrat-of-the-ancien-regime attitude. Particularly as the economy goes further and further down - she may not realize just how much like some belle of the court of Louis XVI she seems to the rest of us, rather than simply not caring about anyone but Paris Hilton, but that doesn’t excuse her either.
OTOH, caring so much about one clueless aristo hedonist while ignoring the old men in suits looting the country is foolish - and typical.
Katha Pollit defended the practice of mocking them on the Women’s Studies list yesterday. She said they had lots of power and were hardly agentless victims of the situation.
I think it’s foolishness because, by calling the fembots, sluts, whores, and stupid (among other things) we are simply reinscribing the very ways of thinking that encourage men to think they can rape women based on what kind of clothes they wear.
Katha, however, thinks these are women who’ve harmed women in general and thus need to be ridiculed.
I like Carol Hanisch’s recent introduction to a re-print of her classic essay, The Personal is Political. Hanisch argues that there was a deep split among feminists over the protests of the Miss American Pageant. She called her side the “pro woman line”. The people who took the other side protested by making fun of the contestants. The ‘pro-woman’ faction did not.
Hanisch’s discussion by the way is quite excellent. She reiterates my favorite axe to grind: ‘the personal is political’ does not mean that we get to bash each other over what kind of bras we wear or if we carry pocketbooks, wear makeup, etc.. Hanisch explains also that the essay, considered such a seminal position now, was actually the result of memos passed back and forth amongst them when they were having a debate over the value of Consciousness Raising groups.
For all the bitching people do about the usefulness of arguing and processing and criticizing one another, one of the classic statements of 2nd wave feminism came out of something akin to a blog post in response to a blogwar among people on your side of the aisle.
At any rate, Hanisch said that CR groups were political in the sense that CR groups made it clear that there were no personal solutions to the problems women were encountering in their lives. The only solutions were political solutions and thus required a political/social movement. Trying to fix the problem by negotiating with you man was a mere coping strategy and not a political one. Trying to fix the problem by refusing to wear makeup was a personal solution that was meaningless without a social/political movement behind it, one doing more than simply abstaining from wearing makeup.
Going after Courtney Love gets on my nerves. Her biggest crime is still daring to be alive though her husband is dead, and anyone who stands by that makes me queasy.
Well, mocking Paris for having sex whenever she pleases and with whomever she pleases is wrong from a feminist pov–even Paris should have sexual freedom. And of course she should be allowed to wear whatever she pleases, though her exhibitionism would be completely inappropriate at an elementary school setting.
However, mocking her for being an ignorant, no-class, bitch is perfectly fine, as it’s empirically demonstrable.
I like Paris mostly because she makes no apologies for herself. No matter how much the media and the public demand she change her ways, ‘fess up, apologize and keep her damn legs crossed, she keeps right on smiling for the camera and doing her thing. You gotta give her some credit for possessing a certain kind of Fuck You here – and I respect that in any woman.
No, I can’t respect Paris. If you watch that Brandon Davis/Paris bash Lindsey Lohan tape, you see that she’s just worthless. Raised without any morals, class, or sense at all.
She should apologize for that behavior. (yeah, yeah, Brandon said it. But Paris whispered it into his ear first, and brayed loudly egging him on.)
It rather disgusts me that someone who has no financial needs feels the need to degrade another woman to feel better about herself and her lack of acting talent.
It seems to me that the “she’s just rich and has no talent” sort of thing is just a pretext to justify bashing her for some other reason. She seems to make people uncomfortable for reasons that go beyond the lack of dessert for her position in the world. I don’t think anyone really cares that much that she’s famous despite being “talentless.” And I don’t see why that would provoke that much ire anyway. Whatever that thing is about Paris that makes people uncomfortable, it’s very similiar to what they don’t like about Aguilera and Love. Her celebrity punching bag status, and the way people react to her/the jokes they tell about her seems exactly the same as theirs, at least to me.
“Bashing” Paris Hilton is like arguing over the nutritional value of cotton candy.
Are there no people in this world who are worse human beings than Paris Hilton, and have more of an impact on our lives?
Bitch Lab: so very much in agreement. It’s not productive, and it reinforces the virgin/whore thing to an insane degree. Usually I just wear jeans, but on the night I decide to wear a short skirt and heels and go dancing, I’d rather everybody didn’t tell me I looked like a dumb slut.
bellatrys- Yeah, consciously I realize how silly it is to take pride in the arbitrary hand that genetics dealt to me. Luck of the draw ! But in a certain sense I’m proud of the features I inherited. I take pride in being female and feeling female; which is a feeling I suppose any woman is entitled to if she desires, no matter how big or small her anything is, or whether she began as a biological female. It really doesn’t matter. It does matter that people can feel free to express pleasure in/with/about their own bodies. I definitely agree that it shouldn’t become a comparison contest, or a race to silicon augmentation.
Also, this: …caring so much about one clueless aristo hedonist while ignoring the old men in suits looting the country is foolish - and typical.
So true. Society is so obsessed with every detail and sordid misadventure of these young women just acting like young women- and yet many people can’t get off their ass and vote, or worry about the way the country’s going. Bah.
Going after Courtney Love gets on my nerves. Her biggest crime is still daring to be alive though her husband is dead, and anyone who stands by that makes me queasy.
Seriously, I have always loved her. She dares to write songs about rape and violence that are furious instead of heartbroken, and recieves a world of shit in return.
Josh posted this video already but this YouTube link might be more accesible.
I don’t like Paris because she represents a generation of rich young people, like her charming friend in the video, that have grown up with no apparent sense of noblesse oblige. I’ts the parents who have dropped the ball here.
There are less and less rich people like the Kennedys and Kerrys or Princess Diana who gave their children some sense of social empathy.
God I miss the Estate Tax!
What’s the saying here at Pandagon? Something about not being either/or but both/and thinkers? I think it’s entirely possible to BOTH hate and despise the rich old suits looting the country of every last dime AND bash astoundingly conceited and self-obsessed children of astoundingly rich old men in suits.
In any case.
jedmunds: I don’t think you’re really being entirely fair. Basically nothing anyone says is going to snap you out of your opinion that we’re just using “rich and talentless” as a pretext of attack for some uncomfortable underlying purpose that none of us can articulate.
Amanda: I hate people that bash Courtney Love. But I actually like Hole, so, I’m on the other side of the firing squad. Not so high on Aguilera though. I mean, she’s a really great singer, it’s just that she bores the crap out of me, especially when she throws in that Mariah Carey warble to show she can hit all the notes.
oh yeah, that video justifies all the cheapshots. haha. but seriously either/or thinkers, I don’t have defend every silly thing Paris has done, nor do I have to defend every silly thing Courtney Love has done, to assault their critics.
If I ever cared enough about Paris Hilton to bash her, it probably wouldn’t have anything to do with how she dresses.
Her biggest crime is still daring to be alive though her husband is dead
Crime, I dunno. I didn’t really care that much about her husband or his band, and I don’t really care that much about her or hers. I’d probably vaguely think well of her, if it weren’t for the fact that she has a child in a very difficult situation who she can’t seem to pull her socks up for.
Makes the whole poor pitiful media victim thing ring a little tinny for me.
The reason why it’s so easy to hate Paris Hilton, is that she is basically a modern Marie Antoinette.
She thinks people who work for a living are lesser beings, and unlike most obnoxious heiresses, she has made her disrespect for us exceedingly clear on national TV.
That said, there are better ways of trashing her than calling her a whore.
Many people hated Courtney even before Kurt killed himself. I got the impression that many of his fans wanted to believe that he was some sort of Christ figure, tortured, empathetic, beautiful, perfect. By marrying a loud, confident, bitchy (in a good way) woman, Cobain demonstrated that he wasn’t what his fans wanted him to be. In fact, when he was alive, Kurt’s fans would claim that Courtney somehow tricked him into marrying her or that she had him whipped. Those fans would choose to ignore the many public statements Kurt made telling her critics to fuck off.
It seems to me that the “she’s just rich and has no talent� sort of thing is just a pretext to justify bashing her for some other reason. She seems to make people uncomfortable for reasons that go beyond the lack of dessert for her position in the world. I don’t think anyone really cares that much that she’s famous despite being “talentless.�
Well. Here I was, thinking I disliked Paris because she was an ignorant, uncultured, spoiled, tactless modern-day aristocrat who’ll never have to work a day in her overly pampered life and who is famous just by virtue of existing. Thank the gods you came along, jedmunds, to tell me that no, the reason I really dislike her is because of some subconscious virgin/whore misogyny! What would I ever do without your insight into my tastes and motivations, oh complete and total stranger!
Gods. Since when is Paris fucking Hilton beyond criticism?
hahaha, yes I’m convinced of the purity of heart in your disdain, touchy strawman builder.
“oh yeah, that video justifies all the cheapshots. haha. but seriously either/or thinkers, I don’t have defend every silly thing Paris has done, nor do I have to defend every silly thing Courtney Love has done, to assault their critics.”
But then again, you do like Oasis, so…
Paris Hilton shouldn’t rate a mention, either positive or negative, so I’d say to her critics, “why waste your time,” and I’d say to her defenders, “why waste the time.” I guess I’m also saying to myself, “why have I wasted my time writing this.”
I’d rather hear another defense of Oasis, a topic I feel far more conflicted about.
What strawman? I directly quoted you saying that people don’t really care about her manifest failings as a human being, but instead hate her beecause of some secret personal biases. And you didn’t say ’some people’ or ‘a lot of her critics’, you just said people.
So. Where, exactly, did I build this strawman, and what did I build it in regards to?
The since when is Paris Hilton beyond criticism question.
Alright then. How, exactly, should one criticise Paris? Since you apparently feel that none of her various actual failings are anything more than cover, and since presumably what they cover are inappropriate things to criticise her, or any woman, for, how exactly does one go about expressing legitimate displeasure with Paris Hilton?
Well, listen Garnet, Paris can be criticized the same way one would criticize anyone else, but one doesn’t see that too often. And I am sure there are plenty around here who are indeed pure of heart in their disdain, but it all sounds the same within the larger reality where most of it is silly and unfair and petty and whatever.
And fear not, J, we’ve got an Oasis post in the works that I’m sure you’ll love.
Okay then, can I mock Paris for actually breaking off an intimate encounter to rummage in her bag to answer her cel phone in that famous video?
Talk about ADD!
I don’t pick on the way Paris dresses because I really doubt she dresses her self. I will grant that whoever is dressing her must hate her because she always looks so pathetic, shabby, and stupid for a grown woman. It almost looks like she never stopped playing dressup out of one of those toy-store chests of pretend accessories. Gwen Stephani who looks pretty strange but at least she remanufactures mass-produced crap and thrift store swag into wacky one-of-a-kind clothes with her own sewing machine! I thought Gwen’s upholstry fabric maternity smock was a hoot on that account.
What annoys me is that Plaster Paris has yet to accomplish squat in her life other than winning a birth lottery. Not that the rich need not be shallow, but I’d prefer she not get the limelight that she does for being shallow and rich. But that’s a problem with the media, not a problem with Paris for using her two working brain cells to exploit the situation.
I find Courtney Love and Christina Aguilera bashing very tedious, since both women are competent (and in Courtney’s case pretty fantastic) artists, and the bashing is superfluous sexist crap that detracts from their work. Paris, though, not so much, since I think inviting the bashing is part of her schtick. She’s the girl in high school you love to hate, and she loves it that you hate her because she knows you’re just jealous, and that you’ll never be in her league. If you think of this thing of hers as performance art, it will all make more sense.
I think I’m mostly saddened that Ms. Hilton, like a lot of other rich young people, has money AND free time, but no apparent desire to be a philanthropist. Oh well, she’s young yet…
Whatever, jedmunds. I trust you’ll excuse me if I don’t exactly cry a fucking river over the terrible plight suffered by the poor, helpless massively independently wealthy ignorant, arrogant latter-day ancien regime trust-fund babies of the world.
To the extent that it would make the world a better place if Paris Hilton used her position, which she did not earn but was born into, to criticise the system that elevated her and to call bullshit on the patriarchy… well, yes, that’d be nice.
On the other hand, not everybody has the advantages of perspective that those of us here have. And of all the things we have to talk about, all the people to criticise and all the perspectives to argue, are we doing all we can to bring about uptopia, if we criticise and lampoon Paris Hilton? Instead of spendin that time tearing down the system that thinks Paris Hilton is more important than Cindy Sheehan? Paris Hilton doesn’t deserve to be a celebrity, but she didn’t make herself a celebrity. The system that made her a celebrity is what needs to be mocked, needs to be torn down. And sharpening our claws on Hilton doesn’t do that. The system doesn’t care if we worship or mock her, so long as we pay attention to her via their channels.
Also, taking cheap shots at her for going commando and having a paparazzi get a lucky snapshot of it is just about the lamest thing ever. OMG, she’s got primary sexual characterisitics to go with her secondary ones? Shocking!
Thanks NBarnes.You just explained something that’s been floating around in my brain for ages without managing to resolve itself.
The whole “bash Paris” thing has always annoyed me, but I’ve never quite figured out why. And then I read this and thought “Yup! Thassit!”
I never cared much for Courtney Love’s music. It never resonated for me. IMO, the Avengers, Patti Smith, and Seven Year Bitch kick Hole’s ass any day of the week.
I feel sorry for her troubles, she seems like she’s damaged pretty bad. I happened to see a clip of her dad talking about her, and it was hideous. It did a lot to illuminate why she’s the way she is. And that is the extent of my feelings for Courtney Love.
As for Paris Hilton, she didn’t choose to be born into the family she was born into. I generally find her uninteresting, as well as being Exhibit A for the saying, “Money can’t buy you taste.” Other than that, I don’t understand why so many people seem to have so many strong feelings about her. She’s just another woman who’s been twisted real good by the patriarchy.
I shall confess that I have an inner bitch, and at least once a day I let her out to have an evil but completely justified laugh with her fellow bitches at Go Fug Yourself. Even though I hate shopping for clothes, and I hate shopping for shoes *twice* as much as that.
Why?
1. Everyone needs an evil laugh.
2. GFY doesn’t criticize female celebs for being too fat (at least, not often), but they *do* occasionally put one on “sternum watch” for getting caught up in the “you can’t be too thin” delusion.
3. They hate Paris Hilton for being an incredibly tacky, shallow, self-involved, shallow, superficial, shallow person. (I actually wonder if Paris is a sociopath — it’s something about the eyes.) They don’t hate Brittney Spears nearly as much as they hate the Hiltons: Spears has actually done something approximating work in her life, and if she sometimes looks like trailer trash she at least comes by it naturally.
4. They hate implants.
5. Sometimes you gotta laugh at how ugly the things worn by professional beauties can be.
6. They hate guys who are jerks: e.g. Brandon Davis, Tom Cruise.
7. They know there’s nothing wrong with being pretty if that’s what you feel like, or with being incredibly tacky — if that’s what you feel like, and if you’re Cher. But don’t be *stupid*, girl.
I’m not really seeing any correlation between Courtney Love and Paris Hilton. It is true that the media do put women in the good girl category like Gwyneth Paltrow or Jennifer Aniston, and a bad girl category like Courtney or Angelina Jolie. But here’s my problem, they all have a craft and put out a product (regardless of whether you think that product is worthy or not) with the exception of Paris. Paris Hilton’s product is Paris Hilton. I don’t see how anyone can say she’s been twisted by the patriarchy when she clearly seeks out the media. She did a reality show, made commercials etc. The woman is not hiding from the press and she doesn’t attempt to distinguish herself in any way other than try to get any type of press coverage. So who exactly is victimizing this woman? I don’t really understand why anyone pays attention to her to begin with, so I don’t loathe her nor do I feel sorry for her. I just wish she’d find something to do.
Honestly, I see a pretty strong parallel between Paris Hilton-bashing and Donald Trump-bashing. Criticism of the former is certainly tinged with sexism, but that is par for the course in our patriarchal society. (Exhibit A: the awful, misogynistic tripe thrown at that horrible Ann Coulter.) Both represent something that many people find odious: people famous solely for their scandalous behavior (whether or not that behavior should be scandalous) and great personal wealth.
What compounds it, of course, is that both are tireless evangelists for aspects of capitalism: Trump for predatory “great-man” finance, and Hilton for crass consumerism. I see nothing inherently wrong or anti-feminist in criticizing Paris Hilton, as long as the criticism isn’t on the basis of “she got fucked on camera and wears revealing clothes.”
Actually, “The Simple Life” is probably the #1 reason Paris Hilton is hated. Each episode is dripping with something between mere callousness and outright disdain for people who work for a living.
Thank you for the link.
I appreciate everyone’s feedback on my essay.
S.H., the reason I say that she is twisted by the patriarchy is proven by exactly the reasons you enumerated: she seeks out and craves the sick attention that she gets. She does half-naked car-washing commercials, she dresses the way she does, she shows off the way she does, she attacks other women the way she does, because the patriarchy has twisted her. If you’re taught all your life that the highest you can aspire to is to be an object of the male gaze and lust, and that that gaze/lust is a zero-sum game that you have to tear down other women to achieve, that is what you will aspire to be and do.
It’s hard for me to get worked up about Paris Hilton. Ann Coulter, on the other hand …
Salon’s Rebecca Traister has a feature story on Paris Hilton today, it’s a must read if you’re engaged in this debate.
Personally, I agree with much of what Traister writes, that Paris represents the vapid, pretty self-centered rich girl who is (and should be) mocked for having all the material advantages in a world where so many have so little, for having no sense of appreciation or responsibility. She’s actually a lot like Bush in that regard, most of her is just surface, what you see is what you get, there is no intellectual curiosity about the world outside their respective bubbles. Neither one of them would have amounted to much of anything if it weren’t for their famous families and surname.
Part of what I don’t like about Paris (I certainly don’t hate her) is that she does represent the very worst of the American Cult of Celebrity. In a nutshell, not only is Paris part of the uber-privileged class, she is also proud of being ignorant, of being superficial, of being uneducated. Not to mention that if Paris weren’t “hot” then no one would even know who she is…
So, as a feminist, I think she’s pretty much an anti-feminist icon. I would never, ever criticize her for having sex, I think “slut” and “whore” are sexist bullshit especially since they only apply to women.
I am pro-Paris (different from liking her), and I have become more “pro-” as a result of all the bashing she gets. Same with Britney Spears. I never used to have feelings on them either way, really, but the bashing has made me veer away from neutral into “you go, girl” territory in each case. Mostly I just love that they both continue to unapologetically live their lives the way they see fit, in spite of the massive amount of public criticism aimed their way. That’s incredibly impressive given their ages.
As for the video, I find it sort of hilarious although I actually do like Lindsay Lohan (genuine “like” as opposed to “you go girl”). Brandon Davis is obviously an asshole but I’ve been in similar situations where drunk friends have started spouting insane shit in the middle of large groups, and it can be utterly hysterical - I can see why Paris would be cracking up. The shock, alone, can get you laughing out of control. Whatever; I’m pro-Paris, not everythingshetouchesisgold-Paris.
Of all the female celebs who are in the public eye, it’s Britney, Paris, Pamela Anderson and Jordan (UK) who I have a level of admiration for in a feminist sense. I’m not ignorant to the part they play in the patriarchy, as icons to oppress regular-type women. It’s the fact that, in each case, they have manipulated the system in such a way as to have a general “fuck you” attitude and have been extremely successful in making money off their objectification (and in several of those cases, to be genuinely good examples to other women or do good work for charity etc.). I think that’s one of the reasons they’re targeted with so much hatred - they owe their fame, in large part, to their hotness and usefulness as sex objects. They’ve run with that and rather than expressing the appropriate shame and self-flagellation (when the tabloids and public try and take them down a peg), instead they’ve continued to do exactly what they want without losing their fame/magazine covers/etc. They aren’t getting the punishment that the patriarchy demands of uppity women - they’ve used their sex-appeal to get to great heights, and then told the patriarchy to fuck off when it’s tried to rein them back in.
Well, I can’t speak for anyone else but I know that my main issue with Paris Hilton isn’t with Paris Hilton per se - it’s with everyone else who responds to her. I agree with the post that calling her a slut and a whore is pretty awful and not at all inline with any sort of feminist goals, but the flipside of that is that there those who find her to be the embodiment of womanly sexuality, and I find that to be just as misogynist as calling her a slut. If she is the embodiment of womanly sexuality, then Velveeta is the most perfect cheese in the world, Taco Bell is the epitome of good Mexican food, and Boone’s Farm is more desirable than a vintage pinot noir. She has even said herself that her boyfriends describe her as ’sexy, not sexual’, meaning that she knows all of the right poses and pouts to make but probably isn’t that good in bed. Her porn movie bears this out. I mean, she took a cell phone call during sex, for god’s sake. It doesn’t get suckier-in-bed than that.
Her image as a sexual being is entirely about performativity not authencity, and so when I hear people hailing her as one of the sexiest women alive, all I can think is that these people must think a woman’s job during sex is to provide warm wet holes and a sexy body for porno style fantasies - not getting off or experiencing pleasure, but being a conduit through which her partners experience pleasure - basically, a living, breathing blow-up doll. I won’t condemn Paris, because this makes me actually feel sort of sorry for her, but I will condemn those who hold her up as a model of female sexuality to be emulated.
Oh, and then there is the fact that she’s an asshole. That’s a quality that tends to tick me off regardless of gender, class, race or sexuality. An asshole is an asshole, Jimmy Choo heels or not.
Heckie, I’d agree with you if I thought Britney, Paris, et. al. were actually thinking about what they were doing.
I definitely get that “I’m here, I’m smarter than you thought, now fuck you all” vibe from celebs like Pink (who I’m betting wouldn’t have gotten where she is if she was not as pretty and sexy as she is) and Madonna, who has consciously and intelligently used her sex appeal to game the patriarchal system for a long, long time now. (I’m sure there are others, but I’m drawing a blank at the moment.)
On the other hand, “I think we should just be faithful to our president and believe everything he says” Britney? “I didn’t know London was in the UK” Paris? Not so much.
This is all, of course, with the caveat that Britney and Paris and etc.’s public dim-bulb personas might be a totally masterful act of performance art, put on to make people think they’re vapid, empty-headed stars in order to appear less threatening to the patriarchy, in which case, I would have to respect that shit. However, I suspect not.
I endeavor to ignore Paris Hilton and don’t care about her one way or the other. (Similarly with Britney, though I may use her as a symbol of the system behind her.) I feel glad she exists, because it lets us use the term “Paris Hilton tax.”
Wow, and here I thought I hated her for encouraging people to buy poorly bred “purse dogs” from shitty breeders and brokers that keep their adult dogs in the most disgusting squallor, breed them with no regard for the health of the resulting puppies, and charge more for the honor of having a unhealthy mutant pet. And then tossing them out (probably to go to a pound) a year or two latter as she gets annoyed with bad habits that she actively encourages.
Turns out I hate her because of my internalized virgin/whore conflict. Thanks so much J (O most inane of Pandagon bloggers.)
Is that sarcasm poli? yeah garnet went with that upthread too. But you know, when you react with such indignance to a non-specific questioning of the motivations of your hatred, it really just makes you sound like a douchebag.
Most insane of Pandagon bloggers is badge I’ll wear proudly. Yeah, It’s probably true.
Okay, J, no sarcasm here, because I’ve enjoyed reading your posts in the past. I think what people are bristling at is your implicit accusation of sexism to those who would criticize Paris Hilton, when they can and do provide other legitimate reasons why they do not find her particularly worthy of respect.
Perhaps you could take the extra effort to figure out the details you have been “unable to express” up to this point. I suspect the anti-Paris posters here would be interested in learning why you find their arguments disingenuous.
Describing someone as having no class is both inaccurate and a personal pet peeve of mine. Paris Hilton has more class than we’ll ever have, because “class” refers to her social class and how well someone apes it’s mores. By virtue of the fact that she’s still accepted by the peers of her class, she’s doing well on both fronts. Meanwhile, it bothers me that we should use such a loaded term to chastise others. Judging people by their “class” or lack thereof is nothing short of judging them by how well they’d fit in with their “betters,” a value most of us would claim we don’t subscribe to. Take a close look at the behaviors that are deemed classless, or tacky which is used in the same fashion. Breastfeeding is frequently described as classless, so is dressing in a certain way, but both are or originally were behaviors practiced by the poor. Same with truisms like “it costs a lot of money to look this cheap” or describing something as “vulgar.” Are we social climbers or aren’t we? If we don’t value the upper classes and wish to emulate them, why do we care whether someone fits in with them? All I’m asking is that we think before adopting the language of class warfare. (Not pointing fingers because I catch myself saying things like that all the time.)
I don’t know how to discuss this succinctly. Cause there’s a lot to write about. Fortunately Kaka Mak has done the bulk of the that writing. Unfortunately, I get the sense that a lot of people haven’t clicked over to read the post.
But I mean the bulk of the paris mockery you see around involves something like south park’s depiction of paris in some kind of whore contest with a gay man or things like that - that’s the bulk of it. And all the little, “well I don’t think she’s classy or has taste, or she’s rich and has no talent” or whatever is drowned out, by the dominance of other criticisms. If that makes sense., like all of your sensible “I hate Paris Hilton, but with purest of all motives” sounds just a part of a chorus of “Oh my god she’s a whore” cacophony. And yes, a lot of it seems like a pretext, anyway, for many. Cause jesus christ who cares?
And the whole, “she has no class” thing, anyway, what is that? a nice way to call her a whore, I think. Or at least a condemnation for failing to fit into your vision of how a woman should act.
Anyway I like what Hekie and nbarnes said upthread.
“Cause jesus christ, who cares?”
You, obviously, since you’re the one who posted this story.
Also, I will stand by the assertion that the woman has no taste–in clothes, at least. Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Exhibit C. Ecch!
Why does the modbot hate me?
Who cares whether she has class or taste, was the question.
Jedmunds: And the answer was “You, obviously,” since you introduced the topic. Since you did introduce the topic, a lot of us threw our 2 cents in about why we dislike (or don’t care about, or have complex thoughts about) Paris Hilton. Which, apparently, was offensive to you for some reason, because it all sounds like slut-shaming to you, and jesus christ, who cares?
If you throw out a topic, it seems strange that you wouldn’t want people to discuss it. If we shouldn’t care about Paris Hilton or have opinions about her, (and the larger society that created her) why did you bring her up?
As for the question of taste, I have two answers to that. First, commenting on fashion is just like commenting on art or music. Fashion is an art form. People have opinions about art forms.
Second, it’s important to remember that this person is presented to women throughout the country as the ideal, as teh pretty, as TEH SEXXXY, as how we as women should aspire to look. She is offering a clothing line to help people look like her. I myself don’t want to look like her, because I think that her look is lacking in taste. NOT because it shows off her body; NOT because I think it’s “slutty”; because I think the colors, fabrics, and silhouettes she chooses are ugly. I dislike the aesthetic.
I don’t give much of a shit about Paris Hilton The Human Being, and normally wouldn’t be taking the time to talk about her, but again, you’re the one who brought up the topic, and you’re the one who is (unfairly, IMO) dismissing people’s opinions of her as being the equivalent of slut-shaming when they manifestly aren’t.
And all the little, “well I don’t think she’s classy or has taste, or she’s rich and has no talent� or whatever is drowned out, by the dominance of other criticisms. If that makes sense., like all of your sensible “I hate Paris Hilton, but with purest of all motives� sounds just a part of a chorus of “Oh my god she’s a whore� cacophony. And yes, a lot of it seems like a pretext, anyway, for many. Cause jesus christ who cares?
I love it! Starts the topic, accuses folks of never disliking Paris Hilton for feminist-appropriate reasons, brushes off anyone who does provide feminist-appropriate reasons, continues to equate reasoned dislike with misogynistic bias, and then asks ‘who cares’ when people respond to the threads he’s started and the insults he’s handed out!
Jesus. Before now I didn’t think one could actually troll one’s own comment threads…
Oh, and as for the idea that Paris (and Britney, and no doubt others of their ilk) should be lauded because they can “continue to unapologetically live their lives the way they see fit, in spite of the massive amount of public criticism aimed their way”; since when is that considered a blanket good? I mean, you could say the same about Strom Thurmand or Fred Phelps or or Ann Coulter or George Bush. If they were, I dunno, personally hand-feeding rape victims in Darfur while the media criticised them for that, sure, but holding up crass, ignorant materialism, brutal snobbery and total disdain for working people up as a lifestyle that people should proudly follow? Hard to agree with you on that one.
Jesus, can you two read in context? The question is who cares about Paris Hilton’s lack of etiquette or class or fashion sense? Is that really why you dislike her so much? cuz who cares. That’s the context of the statement, Joan Rivers.
While I am not accepting the role Official Spokefeminist for Paris, I find it bewildering that folks say “She’s an asshole, she’s shallow, she’s stupid!” with so much authority and conviction.
Who knows? Maybe she’s just incapable of acting to account for her rather affect on The Simple Life. As for the rest, how would anyone know, really, anything about celebs other than what we are fed via crazy media circus flash and bling?
Hmmm.
“Flat affect” that should have read.
Jesus, Jedmunds, can you be more defensive? Is anybody allowed to disagree with you and call bullshit on what is obviously bullshit, or should we all just sit down and be good little ladies and nod our heads for you?
I can read in context, can you? I spoke to your points, can you speak to mine instead of insulting my reading comprehension skills and snarkingly refer to Joan Rivers? I’ve stated that I don’t give a shit about Paris Hilton the person, which means that I don’t dislike her or like her. I certainly don’t hate her, and never said so. I don’t know her.
I will admit that I do dislike the public persona she presents; I do dislike that what she willingly presents as her public image is a really in-your-face pandering to the patriarchy; I do dislike the patriarchal culture that has forced me to notice this woman and which has told me repeatedly that this is the measure by which I and every other woman is judged. And I gave my reasons for commenting on both her clothing and her look.
You said,
Out of context? Whatever, Jedmunds. You approvingly link to a person who says she likes Paris for a number of complex reasons. Other people disagree for a number of complex reasons, but somehow, to you, it all ends up being part of “a chorus of ‘Oh my god she’s a whore’ cacaphony.” Can you see where that might be somewhat insulting and condescending to say? That it might piss people off?
I honestly cannot believe I’ve spent so much of my day thinking about her Paris Hilton. Seriously, I’m done. Who needs a drink?
Rumble I just responded to the parts of what you wrote that I found disagreeable. Namely the part, where you took what I wrote out of context. Which I’ll get defensive about. And yes I do think you divorced that question from context and twisted it to make some cheap shot. The rest of what you wrote isn’t all that disagreeable, so I didn’t feel the need to respond to it. But it seems to me that it’s others being defensive on the main issues of their dislike of the heiress. Not everyone, mind but some. But right, whatever.
And by the “whore cacophony,” I could probably express myself better, but that would take more work than I’m able to muster at the moment. Cause clearly my prior efforts haven’t been up to snuff. And like you, I’m only losing interest in the whole conversation.
“And the whole, “she has no classâ€? thing, anyway, what is that? a nice way to call her a whore, I think. Or at least a condemnation for failing to fit into your vision of how a woman should act.”
I don’t buy that. Britney’s hubby is like the male version of Paris Hilton so this argument just doesn’t hold water for me. Let’s face it assholes and idiots come in both sexes and I’m not giving this girl a pass just because we both happen to have a uterus.
I think there is an interesting discussion to be had here and I think Jedmunds was perhaps trying to get to the larger argument about how women respond to other women who play up the airhead blonde angle and make it work for them(?) The problem is I don’t think Paris is just playing it up, and I’ll admit a part of me says this girl just makes the rest of us have to work harder to be taken seriously. A better example of someone playing the role would be Marilyn Monroe or more recently, Pamela Anderson. But again, that goes back to my original post about having a craft and putting out a product.
But it seems to me that it’s others being defensive on the main issues of their dislike of the heiress.
Wow. It’s almost like those ‘others’ don’t appreciate being told that they don’t really have their own opinions, but only fall into some kind of misogynist ’she’s a whore’ camp. Who could have possibly suspected people would react defensively to being insulted and generalised to such a staggering degree!
the larger argument about how women respond to other women
So I say “hello” and I try to be nice
But I see he’s feeling itchy
Trying to play us off each other,
“Girls, girls, please don’t fight” (you get the picture)
Lush - Ladykillers
Heh. I love this philosophical rabbit hole where we pretend that war is peace, freedom is slavery, tap water tastes like fine brandy, and conventionally beautiful young rich White women who peddle every trite, inane, cliche’ of male fantasy imagineable are brave souls who face the world down daily like the warriors in some gender-reversed Joseph Campbell pastiche.
Everyone who falls into this mode of thinking should go get a copy of Djikstra’s Idols of Perversity from the library and go read the chapter about Paris’ fin de sciele counterparts and what the author refers to as “inverted personal control.” In short, it’s easy to wield power when you’re catering to every hackneyed fantasy in the book. Even when people hate you, it’s a victory, because there’s no such thing as bad publicity. You appear to have acheived mastery, but it’s a sham, since the minute you fail to maintain the dominant culture’s fantasies of how you should be, they turn on you.
If I have to make a rich, messed up WASPy White woman my anti-heroine, I’ll go with Martha Stewart. At least she did it without taking off her clothes. Now that’s novel and fresh in this culture. Still, after all these years.
“She has no classâ€? actually sums up all that things I loathe about Paris Hilton, which are *all* about class. It’s quite possible that those of you who say there’s a public chorus calling Hilton a “whore” are correct, but that’s not the chorus I personally hear.
I think it’s absolutely unfair to Kevin Federline to compare him to Hilton — even though Federline is a nationally-ranked skeezeball. No, the person who is Hilton’s flip side is George W. Bush. Bush’s policies tilt an already tilted playing field even further, so that more wealth runs into the hands of the non-working rich, and that’s what Hilton exemplifies.
I don’t think, Kaka, that it’s just a natural difficulty expressing herself that made Hilton come off like such a conscienceless moron on “The Simple Life”: I think she, like Bush, has demonstrated very little ability to connect to other people. Or in her case, even her dogs.
The most honest assessment of what it’s like to have inherited wealth in America IMHO is Old Money, by Nelson W. Aldrich (a Rockefeller). Aldrich says that the only possible justification for inherited wealth in a democracy is to have people who realize that their money (power) is not earned — it is a fluke, a gift — and for them to turn around and be givers in turn. Neither Bush nor Hilton shows any sign of ascribing to what Aldrich calls “The Gift Ethos”, and *that’s* what I mean by saying Hilton has “no class” or is “ill-bred”. She takes all the benefits of great power (=money), but shows no recognition that she should bear the corresponding great responsibility.
Heckie, I’d agree with you if I thought Britney, Paris, et. al. were actually thinking about what they were doing.
…
This is all, of course, with the caveat that Britney and Paris and etc.’s public dim-bulb personas might be a totally masterful act of performance art, put on to make people think they’re vapid, empty-headed stars in order to appear less threatening to the patriarchy, in which case, I would have to respect that shit. However, I suspect not.
Rumblelizard, when it comes to deliberate manipulation as opposed to the “fuck you” attitude alone, I was referring to Pamela Anderson and, to a lesser extent, Jordan. That’s not clear from what I wrote, though. While they all have the “screw you, I’m not going to be chastised by the system that created me” attitude, Anderson in particular is an intelligent woman and is well aware of what she’s doing in creating herself in the patriarchy’s image. Which is why I’m pro-Paris/Britney but an actual fan of Anderson and (to a lesser extent) Jordan. So, I like all of them for telling patriarchy to fuck off, but only two of the four (and mostly Anderson) are fully aware of what they’re doing.
Garnet said:
Oh, and as for the idea that Paris (and Britney, and no doubt others of their ilk) should be lauded because they can “continue to unapologetically live their lives the way they see fit, in spite of the massive amount of public criticism aimed their way�; since when is that considered a blanket good?
I guess I’d say that the difference between George Bush being criticised and Paris Hilton is that the underlying reasons for the criticism are entirely different (which I think it the point of talking about criticism of Hilton). Bush is in a position where his willful ignorance and refusal to listen to criticism is ruining people’s lives and there is a strong need to criticise the awful policy decisions he’s made for the U.S. and the world. Paris, on the other hand, is so strongly criticised because she’s, frankly, an uppity little woman who refuses to apologise for her behaviour.
That isn’t to say that there aren’t things about Paris’ behaviour that are assholish or gross, but she would never get the amount of criticism she gets if she were a young male celebrity in a similar position. Of all the young starlets who fill the tabloids, ALL of the staples are very young women. ALL are accused of being sluts and whores at some time or another. The fact that Paris’s name is synonymous with “slut”, “whore” and “skank” is nothing to do with her excess consumerism. There are reasons to dislike Paris but why would people even talk about hating her so much if it weren’t partially associated with misogyny? She shouldn’t be worth bothering with, otherwise. I mean, if I’m hating people for their consumerism or whatever there are plenty of other people I would put ahead of Paris on my shit-list. Yet it’s her that gets all the criticism that rich white asshole men just don’t inspire in such a personal way. After all, most, if not all, of them came about their fortunes via daddy, much as Paris did (although she *does* work, despite what the critics would have you believe).
Shit, sorry all. I stuffed up the quoted sections in my comment above.
I guess I’d say that the difference between George Bush being criticised and Paris Hilton is that the underlying reasons for the criticism are entirely different (which I think it the point of talking about criticism of Hilton). Bush is in a position where his willful ignorance and refusal to listen to criticism is ruining people’s lives and there is a strong need to criticise the awful policy decisions he’s made for the U.S. and the world.
Alright, so what’s the difference between private citizens Paris Hilton and Fred Phelps? Or Pat Robertson? Ann Coulter? Do you laud Michelle Malkin for sticking to her racist guns in the face of sensible people’s disapproval? Or perhaps Bill O’Reilly for bravely standing up against the ‘massive amount of public criticism’ aimed at him for being a tremendous asshole? Maybe you’re proud of Rush Limbaugh for sticking to his guns?
And please, given that it wasn’t us Paris-haters who started this thread, can we stop the ridiculous ‘There are reasons to dislike Paris but why would people even talk about hating her so much if it weren’t partially associated with misogyny?’ kinds of lines? We don’t like her, but we’re not the one who brought her up in the first place, thanks.
Garnet, bearing in mind that I’m not American and so have only a passing knowledge of all the people you’d listed, it still doesn’t make sense to me why so many people hate Paris so much given that they’ve never even heard her say anything (as herself - not talking about The Simple Life). The other people you listed spout off with racist/classist/sexist attacks constantly and so surely deserve to be seen as racist/sexist/elitist assholes. Paris has flaws, undoubtedly, but she’s hardly the worst offender (when it comes to, for example, opulent living) and yet gets all the criticism. She’ss little more than an emblem - most of the tabloid stuff, for example, is made up. Even if it weren’t, she’s getting misogynistic language thrown at her constantly for simply daring to exist, as far as I can tell.
And please, given that it wasn’t us Paris-haters who started this thread, can we stop the ridiculous ‘There are reasons to dislike Paris but why would people even talk about hating her so much if it weren’t partially associated with misogyny?’ kinds of lines? We don’t like her, but we’re not the one who brought her up in the first place, thanks.
I’m not directing “people” at people in this thread. Obviously we’re talking about her in a thread about her. I’m talking about the multitudes who see her in magazines and watched The Simple Life (where she’s admitted to playing a caricature of a little rich ditz) and conclude from these oh-so-accurate portrayals that she’s a slutty whore who doesn’t deserve anything she has and hasn’t worked a day in her life. Why are people so het up about Paris Hilton when they know very little about her? And why does she inspire these particular types of sexist attacks? I honestly get why people don’t like her, but it’s the strength of feeling and the way it manifests itself that makes me think there’s a whole bunch of misogyny going on there.
So was the original article for real, or a really clever Alan Sokal-style satire of trendy Slate magazine-style contrarianism for its own sake? Either way, I look forward to the author’s forthcoming defenses of Kevin Federline (whose abandonment of his pregnant girlfriend was clearly a feminist act, repudiating the patriarchal assertion that women should be chained to male dominated relationships to have children) and Joe Francis.
If a tree falls in the forest, etc etc…
If the viewing public treats some shallow asshole heiress on TV to sexist remarks, does their misogyny surpass that of the media jaggoffs who elevated her to broadcast-worthy status in the first place ?
Yes, it’s sexist and misogynistic for people to call her nasty names like “tramp” and “whore.” It’s also sexist and misogynistic that someone like her uses up airtime in the first place.
You’re changing the point there, Hekie. I didn’t say whether you should dislike Paris more or less than those people, I asked if they’re likwise worth rooting for because they “continue to unapologetically live their lives the way they see fit, in spite of the massive amount of public criticism aimed their way”. It wasn’t a nuanced statement when it was originally made, and it’s not a nuanced statement now, so my question is, is it wrong to bluntly root for someone for bucking public opinion to continue being a dick, or should Rush and Bill and Ann and Michelle get props, too?
And if Paris doesn’t like the reaction she got for playing herself as an exaggeratedly stuck-up spoiled brat, tough; that’s show business. You create a persona for yourself, you gotta live with it.
I didn’t mean to dodge, Garnet, and the answer is no. However, since it was made in the context of talking about a woman who is hounded for apparently being a party-hard whore and a slut who should just stay home and be a “good girl” I would have thought it was obvious what I meant. The public attempts to rein in Paris and her ilk for very different reasons than they try and rein in the other people you mentioned. As an another example, for a while there Tara Reid was very much the unapologetic party girl and the tabloids targetted her really strongly and criticised the hell out of her. Eventually, she claimed she was going to stop partying because that wasn’t what she wanted to be known for etc. etc. At that point I stopped being pro-Tara in this same feminist sense (I don’t judge her for it, it’s just a shame). It’s not about my thinking that all their behaviour is OMG TEH AWESOME but rather that I like it when women refuse to be brought “into line” by a public more comfortable with its women being either sexbot or respectable woman.
So, in terms of my original statement: no, of course it is not good for people to unapologetically live their lives when they are publicly criticised for important reasons however, it IS good for women who are targetted because they don’t fit the mold of “the good girl” to continue to be unapologetically themselves. If there are other reasons for the criticism, that’s different, but then that’s what we’re discussing here. Are there other reasons or deep down is a lot of the criticism rooted in sexism?
As for your last statement, I don’t think Paris cares how the public at large sees her - that’s part of why I like her.
See, I’m all for rooting for folks who buck the stifling status quo, but… I really don’t see Paris actually doing that. She’s vain, shallow, ignorant, and projects a tawdry and dehumanising ’sexuality’ that plays up to all the patriarchal stereotypes. She’s pretty much living the life of indolent luxury and late-teen-early-twenties female celebrity-hood that the patriarchy expects her to live. Sure, she’s ignoring the folks who condemn her for partying and being a ’slut’ and a ‘whore’, but her ‘rebellion’ is just her embracing yet another aspect of the patriarchy. It’s like she’s sticking it to Pat Robertson by joing Fred Phelps’ church instead. Different limb of the same malignant body.
I am not one to hate. I have weathered the many fads that have come and gone with a bleary-eyed lack of interest. But when one person can occupy reams of magazine paper for no discernable reason but for her sheer wealth… then I find myself becoming disenchanted.
I don’t appreciate seeing Paris in the pages of magazines I casually flip through in waiting rooms. I don’t appreciate her apparent lack of talent, despite her attempts to demonstrate otherwise.
But most importantly, I don’t appreciate people, who know that through their own endeavours or otherwise that they are media subjects, that dribe whilst intoxicated and/or belittle other people.