She takes to Daily Beast to vent her frustration with the celebrity-media complex. Stacy:
OK, enough: You can go read the whole damned preachy treatise for yourself. I’m just stunned that this woman — a movie/TV star, which is by definition a looks-oriented gig — suddenly decides, at age 43, that being judged for her looks is a bad thing.
This didn’t bother her, apparently, when she was cast in 1996 to play a young Marilyn Monroe. But now, 16 years later, it’s bad to judge her for her looks because, well, the tabloids and HuffPo are saying not-nice things about her looks. She’s a multimillionaire star, and she’s also a victim of the misogynistic patriarchy.
Except it’s not really about her, it’s about all girls and women everywhere, on whose behalf she suffers on her cross, St. Ashley of Hollywood.
The long and the short of it is, she blames it on teh patriarchy and spouts pithy nonsense such as “a central part of my spiritual practice is letting go of otheration.” Surely she means botheration? No, “the hypersexualization of girls and women and subsequent degradation of our sexuality as we walk through the decades, and the general incessant objectification is what this conversation allegedly about my face is really about.” Subsequent, consequent . . . the important thing here is that we (by which we mean Ashley) are walking through the decades and casting our pearls of wisdom before a captive audience of swine.
What does it mean that women are among the most pitiless interpreters of Ashley’s visage?
That women are joining in the ongoing disassembling of my appearance is salient. Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it.
It’s salient, and it means that they’re unwitting dupes to the ever-desirous male gaze, which Ashley has too much integrity to cast herself before. And what kind of work does Ashley do with these news outlets, so-called, which publish this remorseless trash?
News outlets with whom I do serious work, such as publishing op-eds about preventing HIV, empowering poor youth worldwide, and conflict mineral mining in Democratic Republic of Congo, all ran this “story” without checking with my office first for verification, or offering me the dignity of the opportunity to comment. It’s an indictment of them that they would even consider the content printable, and that they, too, without using time-honored journalistic standards, would perpetuate with un-edifying delight such blatantly gendered, ageist, and mean-spirited content.
Serious work. And you know that it’s serious, because she goes to the bother of assembling exactly three modifying clauses (and/or examples) to characterize each of these abominations. And three is the magic number of seriousness. What kind of journalistic standards do they violate when they publish such calumnies? Time-honored. What kind of mineral mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo? Conflict mineral mining, which is as serious as mineral mining (as opposed to mining for a heart of gold) ever gets.
What is the self-righteous alleged “all knowing” stance of the media about? How does this symbolize constraints on girls and women, and encroach on our right to be simply as we are, at any given moment?
I don’t know what it is all about, and not knowing what it is all about, how can I say how it symbolizes constraints on women’s right to be simply as they are (at any given moment)? Surely, that is beyond me, though not apparently beyond Ashley, who knows what that stance is all about, without (however) adopting a posture of omniscience.
Is this going anywhere, Ashley?
I ask especially how we can leverage strong female-to-female alliances to confront and change that there is no winning here as women.
Right. So, you see, there’s no female justice, which would be like male justice, only fair. Just as black justice would be juster than the justice of dead white males (witness victim Emanuel Cleaver). The way the system is rigged, women can’t win, which is why Ashley Judd is so unsuccessful, so bereft of the rewards that society unfairly lavishes on men.
The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood.
Fortunately, the focus on herself is only apparent, and what she’s really on about is how victimized each and every one of us is by our objectification, which is a bad thing, unless the President is yammering about how women really are and should be recognized as an economic force with which to be reckoned.
In related news, Miley Cyrus is not anorexic.